Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

National Association of Registration Officers

Sir D. Kaberry: I beg to present a Petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by the officers and members of the National Association of Registration Officers. The Preamble reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled,
The Humble Petition of the National Association of Registration Officers sheweth"— and so on.
The Petition deals with the conditions of service of registration officers throughout England and Wales, and the concluding paragraph reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that a Government Committee of Inquiry be appointed to investigate the organisation of the registration service; the conditions of service of registration officers; and to make recommendations concerning the reorganisation of the service; the modernisation of the local administration of the service and the salaries and conditions of service of the officers.
Finally, it states:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
The Petition is signed by six officers and is supported by 702 registrars of births, marriages and deaths throughout England and Wales.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

New Mersey Tunnel (Proposals)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement upon the progress of proposals for a new Mersey tunnel.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I understand that the Mersey-side local highway authorities are considering a report they have now received from the technical committee they set up to look into the need for and location of a second crossing of the River Mersey. I hope to receive proposals from the local authorities within the next few weeks.

Mr. Irvine: I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that there are conflicting views on this matter? It is not desired to lose the advantage of the Steering Committee having arrived at an agreed decision, but, at the same time, it is widely felt that a two-lane tunnel may be inadequate for the needs. In that situation, does the Minister acknowledge that this is something which the Government will have to sort out because it is a matter of national interest? If a decision is made that there should be a two-lane tunnel, does the right hon. Gentleman feel free to give an assurance that that would be only the first phase in a process of developing crossings under or over the Mersey?

Mr. Marples: Although, like the hon. and learned Member, I represent a constituency on Merseyside, I do not think that I can give the assurance for which he asks in the last part of his supplementary question. I hope that this agreement locally will be unanimous, but if it is not, and if agreement cannot be reached, I hope that those concerned will let me know within a few weeks what the majority agree and what the minority say and why they are against it. I assure the hon. and learned Member that I will consider how I can speed up a decision, because a decision will have to be made.

Sir H. Oakshott: I think that all of us on Merseyside hope that we will reach agreement in the Steering Committee.


However, can my right hon. Friend say whether his Department has yet been able to make any assessment of the effect on transit traffic in the North travelling through Liverpool and the tunnel and what effect the opening of the M.6 has had on traffic going through Liverpool?

Mr. Marples: It is too early to say, because M.6 has been opened only recently over its full length. Therefore, we will have to wait some time to see what happens. But that will be taken into account when we make this decision.

Road Traffic Regulations

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to ensure that the road traffic regulations are so framed that they put less burden on the time of the police force and can be administered efficiently without straining the relationship between the police and the motorist.

Mr. Marples: Before regulations are made under the Road Traffic Acts my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is always consulted so that the implications of police enforcement can be taken fully into account.

Mr. Wade: Is the Minister aware of the case of the lady who was arrested for not sending her driving licence to the court and the case of the man who was imprisoned for three days and nights because his road fund licence was out of date? Would he agree that this type of case tends to exacerbate the feeling of motorists and thereby makes the task of the police more difficult? What does he suggest should be done about these cases.

Mr. Marples: I have seen some articles in the Press on the people concerned in these two cases. They have varied a little. But this is a question for the Home Secretary, not for me. The task of enforcement is the Home Secretary's, not mine.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this question again? The police are being utilised in tracking down petty motoring offences when they could surely be better employed elsewhere. Could not he consider some system of enforcement officers, perhaps under the traffic commissioners, to carry

out this sort of work? Would not this be in the interests of the good type of road hauliers and other road users who feel very aggrieved by many breaches of the law?

Mr. Marples: Responsibility for enforcement and the actions of the police in the area is not mine. It is no good my looking at it. The responsibility is that of the Home Secretary.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to evade responsibility by saying that it belongs to the Home Secretary. Has not the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that the Home Secretary is not responsible for the police everywhere but only in London, and that any responsibility there may be outside London must, therefore, be his? Will he not look at this again to see whether applications for warrants should continue to be made in quite trivial cases when all common sense is against it?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I said that the Home Secretary had responsibility for the Metropolitan Police but outside that area it is still not I who am responsible.

Traffic Signs

Mr. Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking on the conclusion of the Committee on Traffic Signs for All-Purpose Roads that higher standards of road marking are needed and on their recommendation that lane and warning lines should be more extensively used, and reflectors placed on much used rural roads or where fog is prevalent.

Mr. Marples: New regulations, together with a manual for the use of local authorities, are being prepared in consultation with interested organisations, to implement the recommendations in the Warboys Report on traffic signs.

Mr. Bossom: As soon as some of these tests are completed, will my right hon. Friend start a drive to convince and persuade all local authorities of the importance and advantage of having better and also reflectorised road markings as recommended in the Report?

Mr. Marples: We have agreed that, to begin with, at every intersection, especially major ones, there will be clear


indications of what motorists should do. That was in the Report and it is most important.

Malton By-Pass

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Transport when work will commence on the Malton by-pass on A.64.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): We hope to be able to authorise a start of work on the eastern arm of the by-pass within about eighteen months.

Mr. Turton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that for twenty-five years my constituents have been pressing for the eastern arm of this road and that they have been caused both loss and inconvenience, by the delay? Is he further aware that in July, 1960—three and a half years ago—the Minister said that preparatory work was being undertaken and that he hoped that the eastern arm would be started soon? Time has been very long in this matter.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend's constituents will at least be glad to know that work will start within eighteen months.

York Road-Wetherby By-pass

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have taken place at the intersection of York Road and Wetherby by-pass since the by-pass was built; and when it is expected that the proposed flyover will be completed at this junction.

Mr. Galbraith: In the four years since the by-pass was opened there have been thirty-one accidents at this junction. In two of these there were fatal injuries, and in another seven there were serious injuries. There have been objections to the draft Order in which we are seeking authority to provide the flyover. But we hope to resolve these soon and, if all goes well, to start work by the autumn of next year. Construction of the flyover will take about twelve months.

Bridge, Selby

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport whether the plans for road improvement for the period ending 1967–68 include a scheme for the provision of a toll-free bridge at Selby.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the obstruction to road and river traffic caused by the recent collision at Selby toll bridge; and what proposals he has for improving the traffic problem at this bridge.

Mr. Marples: I am aware of the recent accident which held up traffic for a little over two hours. In November last year I appointed consulting engineers to investigate present and future trunk road requirements between the Great North Road and the port of Hull. This investigation includes the need for and siting of a new bridge over the River Ouse to relieve the bottlenecks at Selby and Boothferry bridges. I hope to have the consulting engineers' recommendations, in the spring of next year.
In the meantime, I have left room in the trunk road programme for the period ending 1967–68 for improvement schemes which will be designed in the light of the consulting engineers' report..

Sir L. Ropner: But cannot my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, after a period of about sixty years, the Department over which he presides has just about got to the end of inventing plausible but ill-founded excuses for not ridding Selby of the curse of this toll bridge which causes such inconvenience and loss of trade to Selby and the surrounding district?

Mr. Marples: I am always grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the way in which he understates his case. There was no Ministry of Transport sixty years ago and traffic congestion then with horse-drawn vehicles was worse than it is now. We now have consulting engineers making a technical assessment of the job. I promise my hon. and gallant Friend a firm place on the programme and I am sure he will rejoice.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister drawing up plans for the provision of a toll-free bridge to replace the toll bridge?

Mr. Marples: We had better see what happens when the consultant engineers report.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this bridge has been a disgrace for many years? It is not only the constituents of the hon. and gallant


Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) who suffer but also people who live in Leeds and the other cities of the West Riding? If we could have a new bridge at Selby the problem at Malton would be greatly relieved.

Mr. Marples: I am quite aware of that, but one of the difficulties with some of these very old toll bridges is that their owners have the revenue tax-free.

A.30 and A.303 Roads (Dual Carriageway)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made, in the last six months, in placing double tracks on the A.30 and A.303 roads to the West Country.

Mr. Galbraith: In addition to the existing 8·44 miles of dual carriageways on these roads, 2·87 miles have been completed during the last six months and 3·05 miles are under construction. A further ten miles are in the announced programme, including the Honiton, Andover and Amesbury by-passes.

Mr. Digby: Is not this a deplorable rate of progress, especially in view of the latest threat of the Railways Board to close the main line to the West Country at Salisbury?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot agree with the conclusion which my hon. Friend has drawn from these figures. I think that they represent not bad going.

West Country

19. Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will readjust his road-building programme in order to give a higher priority to the West Country and to Devon in particular.

Mr. Marples: Between I960 and 1968 the West Country's share of the trunk and classified road major improvement programmes will total some £40 million. I would like to increase it further, but this could be done only at the expense of more urgent needs elsewhere.

Mr. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for four years now I have been asking when more" money would be spent on the West Country? Is he

aware that of his last hand-out of £45 million only £500,000 was allocated to Devon? Is he aware that the county surveyor has said that we should need £136 million in Devon if we are to get our roads into some sort of order, and does not he think that we might have a higher priority now, and that he might look to the South-West instead of going on talking about the industrial roads in the Midlands?

Mr. Marples: I think it right that the bulk of the spending should be concentrated where the heaviest traffic is carried every day. There is no escape from that. I must also point out to my hon. Friend that there are other hon. Members representing constituencies in different parts of the country who would have other views about what is required. He must remember that a high priority for expenditure in one place means that there is a lower priority in another place. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Wilkins: Is the Minister aware that some of us have been asking for these road improvements for fourteen years and not four? Is he aware that there is currently a debate taking place in the House about the growth and development of other areas of the country and that on Saturday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that there would be a considerable waiting period before there was any hope of the South-West being included in a scheme? Is the Minister aware that tourism is the greatest single industry in the South-West and that thousands of people depend upon it for their livelihood? Is he aware that many hundreds of thousands of people are refusing to visit Cornwall and Devon because of the chaotic state of the traffic in those areas?

Mr. Marples: I am aware of some of the things which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his supplementary question, but I do not agree with all that he said.

Mr. Browne: May I add a word to what has been said about the tourist trade by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins)? Would my right hon. Friend agree that he is wrong in saying that many people in other parts of the country would not like to see


more money spent in the South-West? Does not he appreciate that many of the constituents of hon. Members visit the South-West for their holidays, and we want them to continue to come?

Mr. Marples: If they are already coming to the South-West the facilities must be reasonably adequate.

Mr. Wilkins: They are chaotic.

Parking Meter Zones (Double Yellow Lines)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport what restrictions on parking are imposed where double yellow lines are marked on the carriageway adjacent to the kerb in the area of parking meters; and in what manner the use of such carriageway markings has been authorised.

Mr. Marples: Double yellow lines on the carriageway in a parking meter zone indicate a ban on waiting at all times, except for the picking up or setting down of passengers; they also indicate a ban on loading or unloading between 8.30 a.m. and midnight. I have authorised the use of these carriageway markings under the powers given to me in Section 51 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say how this authorisation has been communicated to the public? Is he aware that my impression is that no authorisation has been made public at any time?

Mr. Marples: I can do that quite easily. There was a Press notice which was given good coverage; the Westminster City Council produced an explanatory leaflet for drivers; the road transport organisations informed members through their bulletins and the motoring organisations covered the matter in leaflets explaining the meter zone rules. Therefore, it has received general publicity. If my hon. Friend has any further suggestions, I shall gladly consider them.

London Docks

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the increasing traffic congestion in the London Docks that is causing long and expensive waiting time for vehicles which is likely to be worsened by the

closing of the Export Reception Dock for small consignments at Royal Victoria Dock; and what proposals he has for dealing with this problem.

Mr. Marples: Traffic arrangements inside the docks are a matter for the Port of London Authority. It tells me that it is going to keep open the reception depot for a further six months to see whether greater use is made of it by traders. The Authority does not agree that congestion is increasing in the docks, but it is alive to the need for improvement.

Mr. Hall: I welcome the news that the closing of this reception depot is to be postponed for six months. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conditions of congestion at the docks are not improving but getting far worse, and that there are delays of 48 hours? Does not this add considerably to the cost of exporting and thus discourage many firms who wish to start to export?

Mr. Marples: The information which I have from the Port of London Authority is contrary to what my hon. Friend has said. The most effective method of reducing the congestion would be to provide for a more even flow of export cargo to the docks. The Port of London Authority is trying to arrange this, but it is very difficult, because exporters think that if they get to the docks at the last moment, their goods are taken off the ship first at the point of arrival. This causes half the difficulty.

Oxford Street

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects that traffic signals to guide pedestrians will be installed in one-way streets where they join Oxford Street, London, W.1

Mr. Galbraith: Pedestrian signals have been provided in Regent Street north and south of Oxford Circus and at Old Quebec Street, and they are being provided at Old Cavendish Street Pedestrians can cross in safety other one-way streets entering Oxford Street when the traffic is halted by the signals. We do not think that pedestrian aspects in these signals are justified at present.

Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that many pedestrians, especially


old people, become bewildered if they get no guidance about crossing one-way streets, particularly busy streets like Orchard Street, and will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend continues to keep this matter under constant review. He will keep in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to prevent traffic in Oxford Street, London, W.1, from being brought to a halt across intersections, thus blocking cross-traffic as well.

Mr. Marples: I am very conscious of this difficulty and of the deteriorating traffic conditions generally in Oxford Street. I am giving the problems urgent consideration and expect to be able to make proposals early in the New Year.

Mr. Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would not he agree that to be blocked by a stream of traffic across an intersection is one of the most infuriating ways of being involved in a traffic jam?

Mr. Marples: This particular area of the West End is about the most difficult to sort out. It has not been made any easier by the building of the Victoria Tube extension. This has alteredthe original proposals which I had in mind and I am trying to work out new ones to take account of the alteration now being made as a result of the Victoria Tube. These will be announced early in the New Year.

Mr. Lipton: In the absence of any hon. Member representing St. Marylebone and the area north of Oxford Street, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider a fundamental approach to this problem? Will he bear in mind that many years ago I suggested that there should be consideration of some method of restricting cars from coming into the centre of London? Is he aware that this idea has been confirmed by the Buchanan Report and will he take fundamental action to tackle the problem?

Mr. Marples: I do not remember the hon. Gentleman sending any details of methods to restrict cars coming into the centre of London.

Accidents (Drunken Drivers)

26. Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Transport how many fatal accidents took place in the United Kingdom in 1961, 1962, and up to the latest date in 1963, respectively, involving drunken driving; and what new proposals he has to reverse this trend.

Mr. Marples: In 1961 56 drivers or riders of vehicles involved in fatal road accidents in Great Britain were charged with a drink offence or would have been so charged but for their death. There were 83 such cases in 1962 and 44 in the first nine months of 1963. The figures for 1963 show a reduction of one-third on those for the corresponding period of 1962. As regards the last part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15th May last.

Mr. Dempsey: The figures indicating reductions are welcome. But does not the Minister realise that it is a national scandal that so many good and innocent people should be cut down in this shocking fashion? Does not he realise that he should become a little tougher about the drunken driver? Would he consider brandishing the deterrent of being banned from driving for life in order to minimise, if not eliminate, this type of crime?

Mr. Marples: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of this menace—and "menace"is the only word I can use. For this reason I tried to introduce additional penalties into the Road Traffic Act, 1962. But I can only be as tough as Parliament will allow when getting a Measure through this House.

Sir C. Osborne: As a drunken driver is about as dangerous as a man with a loaded machine gun, will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether the courts can impose greater penalties for crimes arising from such circumstances?

Mr. Marples: I will bring that supplementary question to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Opposition wanted him to go further than he did


in respect of legislation imposing penalties, and is it not logical, therefore, to argue that his hon. Friends prevented him from going as far as he wanted while we on this side of the House would have supported any further action?.

Mr. Marples: I do not think that I shall enter into a discussion on that controversial point now.

Maidstone By-pass

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Transport if he will expedite the starting date of the westerly continuation of the Maidstone by-pass.

Mr. Galbraith: The planning of this scheme is going ahead as quickly as possible. But we cannot at this stage say when it will be possible to find a place for it in the road programme.

Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that the M.20 westerly continuation will be put in hand substantially before the Channel tunnel begins?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend will, naturally, bear that point in mind.

Mr. Marsh: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government are discussing the prospect of a Channel tunnel without knowing what they will do about the road which leads to it?

Mr. Galbraith: This is not a Question about the Channel tunnel. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a Question about the Channel tunnel, perhaps he will put it down.

A.1 Road, Crumley Corner

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Transport what plans his Department has to mitigate the danger at Crumley Corner on the A.1 road north of Coatham Mundeville.

Mr. Galbraith: Crumley Corner will be eliminated altogether when this section of A.1is diverted on a new alignment into the roundabout which is to be constructed at this point to take the northern terminal of the Darlington by-pass now under construction. We aim to start work on the roundabout in about nine months. In the meantime,

we have done all we reasonably can to warn road users of the dangers at this bend by providing additional signs and marker posts.

Mr. Slater: Will the hon. Gentleman take it that I have in my hand a Press cutting, under the heading, "Appointment with Death", which reveals that within the list six years no fewer than ten fatal accidents have taken place at this particular spot? Another fatal accident occurred there only last week. Moreover, sixty-five other accidents occurred there within the last four years. What has the hon. Gentleman's Department been doing during the past few years about this danger spot which has involved so many fatal accidents? If we have to wait until such time as the new major by-pass road comes across and further accidents take place, the danger not being mitigated by the measures which have been taken, will not the people of the district be right to draw the conclusion that the Ministry is not interested at all?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman's figures are not exactly the same as mine. The figuresI have show that, in the last four years, there has, in fact, been only one fatal accident. My right hon. Friend is going ahead as fast as he can to improve the situation, and he has put up additional signs and marker posts to indicate to those using the road that this is a danger spot.

Stowmarket Relief Road

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Transport when work is to start on the Stowmarket relief road.

Mr. Galbraith: We cannot say yet when this scheme will be included in the trunk road programme.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my hon. Friend aware that this relief road has been under discussion now for six or seven years and that this Answer will be most disappointing to all my enterprising constituents in this area? Many fatal accidents and many minor ones occur on this very narrow road, which is the access of the export trade from the Midlands to the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. Will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend will bear in mind what my hon. and gallant Friend has said in considering an extension of the programme, but at present we cannot give any indication of when it will come in.

By-pass, Claydon

Sir H Harrison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to replace the level crossing at Claydon, East Suffolk, on the A.45 by a bridge.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. We propose instead to build a by-pass of Claydon which will be carried over the railway.

Sir H. Harrison: This is more welcome news about a by-pass round the level crossing, but has my hon. Friend any idea when this major extension will take place?

Mr. Galbraith: We do not like to forecast when it will be possible to include this work.

Piccadilly Circus

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport upon what basis of calculation he requires the amendment of the Holford Plan for Piccadilly Circus in order to provide for approximately 7,000 vehicles per hour of daylight.

Mr. Marples: The basis was the general agreement between the London County Council as planning and road improvement authority and myself that major junctions in London should provide for a capacity of either 60 per cent.over the level of traffic in 1960, or the foreseeable capacity of the approach roads, whichever is the less. We estimate that the approach roads to Piccadilly Circus will be able to handle 50 per cent. more traffic than in 1960. If the Circus cannot match this capacity, it will become increasingly jammed.

Mr. Robinson: First, how did it come about that Sir William Holford was asked in his original remit to make provision for 5,000 vehicles only per hour? Second, if traffic considerations are to be paramount in this matter, what makes the Minister think that even 7,000 will be a sufficient figure in, say, twenty years? Will the right hon. Gentleman now, in the light of the Buchanan Report, beat a graceful

retreat and accept the plan as originally submitted to him?

Mr. Marples: I must make clear that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I never said, as Sir William Holford alleges, that traffic must be the first consideration in the Circus. That was never said. All we said to the London County Council was that we thought that the Holford scheme made inadequate provision for traffic and that 50 per cent.—not more than that—reserve capacity should be provided for this reason. All the roads radiating from Piccadilly Circus now have an extra 50 per cent. capacity and, if they have that 50 per cent. capacity and it is not matched by Piccadilly Circus, the result will be chaotic.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister tell us why the original remit to Sir William Holford was to permit a flow of traffic of 5,000 vehicles per hour? Surely, that was done with the Minister's knowledge, and, if it had not been so, all this difficulty would not have arisen.

Mr. Marples: I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). We said to the London County Council that we thought that the Holford scheme made inadequate provision for traffic and that there should be 50 per cent.—not more—extra capacity reserve for traffic.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister answer the first part of my supplementary question and my right hon. Friend's supplementary question? Why was the original remit for a circulation of 5,000 and not 7,000 vehicles per hour?

Mr. Marples: I have always asked for the 50 per cent. As far as I am concerned, I shall not use the funds allocated to me for road traffic for something which actually reduces road capacity.

A.20 Road (Feeder Roads)

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Transport what special steps he is taking to improve the various trunk roads which feed the A.20 and which will be under increased pressure when a fixed Channel link is completed.

Mr. Marples: The effects of a fixed Channel link on our present plans for


road improvements have been studied, and will be taken into account in reaching a decision.

Mr. Wells: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to improve these feeder roads before the fixed Channel link is completed, because they are already under great pressure?

Mr. Marples: That does not deal with quite the same thing as did the original Question, if I may say so with respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport what report he has received from the Atomic Energy Authority about the construction of a nuclear-powered merchant fleet; if he proposes to implement the recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport whether Her Majesty's Government's policy of modernisation will include the entry of Great Britain into the field of nuclear-powered merchant shipping assisted by Government finance.

Commander: Courtney asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to place an order for the first British prototype nuclear-powered merchant ship.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the reactor to be used in a nuclear-powered merchant ship.

Mr. Marples: I cannot add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 27th November.

Mr. Awbery: May we take it that the Government's advisers have told them that it is feasible to go on with the construction of an atomic ship? Two atomic ships are already in existence—a cargo vessel belonging to the United States and an icebreaker belonging to Russia. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if we build in quantity, these ships will be much cheaper than building in units and that the Government are the only people who can proceed with such a project?

Mr. Marples: A working group is going into the technical aspects of this project and so far its technical assessment is proving difficult. We must give it time to do the job properly. The assessment has not yet been received by the Government.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this kind of Answer has been given year after year? Is it not time that we changed the working group and the leadership of the Atomic Energy Authority? Is it not time he got it into his head—I am sure that he has now—that unless we produce some reactor we shall lose the race in the world? Is he further aware that I and a great many others feel that we could triumph in this matter if he would only put a few bombs under some of those who ought to get on with the job and that he should cease his delaying answers?

Mr. Marples: I agree that some things do delay progress but I must remind my hon. Friend that the mere fact that this Answer has been given several times does not make it any the less true.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the 630A marine nuclear reactor developed in the United States of America; and if this system will be evaluated by the working group on marine reactor research in comparison with the Vulcain and IBR reactors.

Mr. Marples: This system is one of those currently being evaluated by the Working Group.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that this 630A marine nuclear reactor is being ordered by marine commercial firms in the United States for incorporation in vessels about to be launched, and is there not a grave danger that this country will fall behind the United States in the development of reactors for commercial marine use? Should not the Ministertake a decision very shortly on the type of reactor to be used in British commercial merchant ships using an atomic propulsion system?

Mr. Marples: As I said in reply to an earlier Question, a Working Group is making a technical assessment. One of the reasons why it is taking longer than otherwise would be the case is that it is


looking, not only at the Vulcain and IBR reactors, but at an improved version of the United Kingdom Mitchell design, and three American designs as well. If one does that, it obviously means that one will take longer.

Elder Brethren of Trinity House

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to bring the Elder Brethren of Trinity House under the full control of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I see no reason to do this, but if the hon. Member would let me know if he has any particular point in mind I should be glad to consider it.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister bear in mind that along the eight miles stretch of coast on the south side of the Land's End peninsula, during the past 12 years, 21 ships have been lost, 39 lives have been lost, and 28 men have been saved? Did the right hon. Gentleman see Mr. Christopher Brasher's B.B.C. television item a few weeks ago in which he told the full story of these terrible tragedies and of the inactivity or refusal of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House to do anything about them? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all Cornish-men are very angry at this story, and will he, at least, receive a deputation from the fishermen concerned?

Mr. Marples: I did not see the broadcast to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he will give me notice of his rather long supplementary question, I will certainly consider it.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we are extremely pleased to see with us here this afternoon the most distinguished of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)? Will the Minister use his good offices in the matter—this happens to be in my constituency—and will he, perhaps, look at a recording of that television programme, in which I took part? I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine the question again, as there is no light on the coast of Cornwall between Penlee and the Lizard, and all the casualties which have occurred have been of

foreign vessels. As Trinity House says that it is its job to look after foreign-going traffic, it is most important that the matter be looked at again.

Mr. Marples: Now that I know that my hon Friend appeared in the programme, I am reinforced in my determination to see a recording, if it is possible. I promise my hon. Friend that I shall go into this. In response to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am sure that the entire House is glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in his place.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister reconsider his answer to me? Although they may be foreign lives, they are the lives of men. Will the Minister bring the Elder Brethren of Trinity House wholly under his control?

Mr. Marples: I shall look at the exchange of views, and I shall certainly go into the matter. If the hon. Gentleman has any further information and cares to write to me, I shall be greatly obliged.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Canals (Holiday Cruising)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that holiday cruising on canals is becoming increasingly popular; and if he will give a general direction, inthe public interest, to the Inland Waterways Board to clear waterways which are now silting up and becoming unusable and unsightly and to put them in a fit condition for such traffic.

Mr. Marples: I do not think it necessary or appropriate to give such a direction. As I told the House on 31st July, the Board is examining all aspects of the future use of the inland waterways for which it is responsible.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of canals are being silted up and their gateways becoming beyond repair, while a large number of people are anxious to use them for commercial purposes, cruising or angling? Will he see whether something can be done before they become eyesores and rubbish tips?

Mr. Marples: The assets of the waterways were vested in the present management only eleven months ago. It promised to report on this by about the end of the year. I have seen a draft of the report and an announcement will be made shortly. I must await the report, but in the meantimeit may give the hon. Member some pleasure to know that, under Section 64 of the Transport Act, waterways must be maintained in at least the condition they were in in November, 1961.

Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the case of the Kennet and Avon Canal which cuts across beautiful countryside and is admirable for cruising purposes?

Mr. Marples: That is one of the canals dealt with in the report.

Trailers (Direction Indicators)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many traffic accidents are due to the absence of adequate indicator signals on trailers behind heavy lorries; and whether he will introduce regulations to make the fitting of such direction indicators compulsory.

Mr. Marples: During 1961 the number of heavy goods vehicles involved in serious accidents while towing was 130, but information on how many of the trailers lacked direction indicators is not available. The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1963, contain new provisions about direction indicators fitted to vehicles registered after August, 1965. These include a requirement that any large trailer towed by a motor vehicle so fitted shall itself be fitted with direction indicators. I wish to have some experience of the working of the new requirements before making it compulsory for any motor vehicle to be fitted with direction indicators.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is a continuing danger from these long trailers which, at the moment, have no traffic indicators to show when they are turning, and that a number of accidents are still occurring because of this? Will he consider bringing in new regulations in

the interests both of other road users and of the drivers of these heavy lorries with trailers, who have to use hand signals at present?

Mr. Marples: I appreciate the point and there is no doubt that this does constitute a problem. I have already made some regulations and I should like to see how they work. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we shall not be slow in this matter.

Mr. Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of these drivers use flashing head lights as signals and that the signals are not understood by many motorists, including myself? Will he make regulations or proposals on how the signals could be understood?

Mr. Marples: I do not think so. Each truck driver has his own particular system but I noticed, when we were having tests, for heavy diesel smoke, that although we caught quite a number of people in the first hour we saw very few smoking diesel engines thereafter.

Mr. H. Hynd: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department studied the very efficient arrangements in America for signals on the backs of heavy goods vehicles and trailers?

Mr. Marples: Yes. We have also studied systems on the Continent where some heavy trailers are festooned with lights at the back.

Driving Tests

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Transport how many persons are on the waiting list for driving tests; what is the longest waiting period for applicants; and if he will recruit more driving-test examiners in order to reduce the waiting; period.

Mr. Marples: There are 388,450 persons on the waiting list. The average waiting period is 10–11 weeks and the longest waiting period is 16 weeks, at certain centres in the Metropolitan area. Arrangements have been made to recruit additional examiners for that area.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not the Minister consider that it indicates an undue delay when so many people are waiting for a driving examination? Has he thought of making the conditions for examiners


more attractive so that additional officers might be recruited in order to minimise the delay?

Mr. Marples: It is not a question of making their conditions more attractive but of being able to recruit men who are well qualified to do this rather difficult job. They have to attain a standard of skill which we cannot go below. Another difficulty is that a number of people make appointments to take driving tests and do not keep them.

Sir J. Eden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very serious problem in the Bournemouth area? Does not it indicate a welcome increase in the standard of living that there should be such a large demand for driving instruction?

Mr. Marples: I agree that Bournemouth is a special district and I have written to my hon. Friend on the subject. I agree that the affluent society is something of which we have no need to be ashamed.

Defective Vehicles, South Wales

Mr. A. Pearson: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he will take in view of public concern arising from the serious road crashes in South Wales, involving death and injury to persons and repeated damage to property, and from the evidence in the reports of his examiners to a public inquiry held in October last by the licensing authority for the South Wales Traffic Area, on the condition of over seventy vehicles of one firm, which showed numerous defects in their braking and steering systems and other shortcomings.

Mr. Marples: The defective vehicles were prohibited from further use until they were put into roadworthy condition. As a result of the action taken by the licensing authority, the firm's arrangements for vehicle maintenance have been substantially improved,
I assume that, in referring to road crashes, the hon. Member has in mind those involving goods vehicles which have occurred at Cowbridge, Glamorgan. Investigations conducted by the Department's technical officers have disclosed only one case in which the accident resulted from a defect in the vehicle and

in this instance it was due to a mechanical failure which could not be related to lack of maintenance.

Mr. Pearson: Is not there accumulating evidence that motor transport vehicles carrying heavy loads are ill maintained,and does not the present state of affairs require that legislation should be introduced to ensure that maintenance is carried out only by qualified motor transport engineers?

Mr. Marples: To set up such qualifications would be a pretty big job. On the wider question of the condition of goods vehicles generally, I am now working out arrangements with a view to the inclusion of all goods vehicles within the annual testing scheme which at present applies only to goods vehicles up to 30 cwt.

Children (Concessionary Fares)

Mr. Lagden: asked the Minister of Transport if he will allow the cheap rate on public transport for children up to the age of 15 years to replace the age limit of 14 years, which was intended to apply when the school-leaving age was 14 years.

Mr. Galbraith: The granting of fares concessions is a matter for the commercial judgment of the operator, subject where necessary to the approval of the appropriate controlling authority. The official school-leaving age is not the decisive factor in granting cheap travel to children. Almost all operators already allow cheap travel to and from school up to the age of 15 years.

Mr. Lagden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cheap rate, if it is desirable for children between 13 and 14 years of age, is equally desirable for children between 14 and 15 years of age, when they are still the same schoolchildren? If he has no power in the matter, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will make recommendations to those who have in order to get things changed.

Mr. Galbraith: My information is that most operators do what my hon. Friend asks. I should like to consider, in the light of any information which he can give to me, the proposition which he suggests should be put to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Proposed Closures (Former Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate his divisional road engineers have made for necessary road improvements as a result of the closure proposal for the former Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway.

Mr. Marples: I have not yet received the reports of the South Eastern and South Western Transport Users' Consultative Committees on hardship. Until I have studied them and any proposals they may make for alternative services I shall not be able to make a final assessment of the road implications. It would, in any case, be improper for me to comment on any aspect of the closure proposal before I reach a decision.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing scepticism that these alternative road facilities will be provided? Obviously it will take some time in any case. Surely an assessment at this stage could be made?

Mr. Marples: Until I have the report of the statutory bodies set up to consider them, I cannot comment on alternative services.

Mr. Mellish: Will the right hon. Gentleman refuse to close stretches of railway until the Buchanan, Rochdale and Beeching Reports are considered as a whole? Is it not ludicrous to go on closing stretches of railway when, under a national plan later, he will find that it was wrong to have done so?

Mr. Marples: I cannot give that assurance. I will look at these alternative services and what the transport users'consultative committees say in their reports. What really interests people in my hon. Friend's constituency is the alternative arrangements that can be made between the two stations in mind. They do not want to know about a road survey between Glasgow and Edinburgh but what alternative services they are to get locally.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when the time

comes that the road system has been much neglected in this area and that a very great number of agricultural wide loads, in the technical sense—combine harvesters and balers—are at present delivered by railway and would have to be delivered by the existing narrow and inconvenient roads in the event of the closure of this line? This would be an acute problem from the moment the line closed, if it does.

Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that all these circumstances will be taken into account before a decision is reached.

Repair Work

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board, requiring it to carry out repair work in its own workshops by its own staff, instead of placing work with outside contractors while laying off its own men as redundant.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. It is for the Railways Board, in the exercise of its managerial responsibility, to decide where to place orders for the repair of its equipment.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the Minister realise that it makes a bad impression in workshops when skilled craftsmen, who have been trained there and have worked there for many years, see orders given out to others, while they are left idle and in fear of being discharged as redundant? Is not that a bad thing not only from the economic point of view regarding the railways, but also because of the waste of manpower and of skilledservants of the railways?

Mr. Marples: The burden of contraction in railway repair work has been shared between private and public investment and the private sector has borne its share of the contraction.

Mr. Popplewell: Does not the Minister understand that his reply makes absolute nonsense? Is he aware that the Darlington railway works has been closed, but a new firm has come into the same premises, a private firm, and is doing work almost identical with that which the railway workshops did? Is he aware that this is part of the Beeching drive? Will he have another


look at the matter and allow skilled railway shopmen to carry on their own craft in a continuity of service, instead of there being the upheavals which have been brought about by his policy?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. Repairs are a matter for management and are closely bound up with day-to-day operations. As Minister, I should not interfere in matters of repairs because it would infringe managerial responsibility.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us represent constituents who work in privately-owned railway shops as well as constituents who work in railway workshops? Is he aware that I am equally concerned about the employment of all my constituents?

Mr. Marples: I am aware of that and I quite agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport what was the cost to the Railways Board, in the latest convenient 12-month period, of labour and materials, respectively, employed in railway workshopsin rectifying defective bearings in diesel locomotives and other defects in stock supplied to the railways by private firms.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member's Question relates to commercial matters on which I should not feel justified in asking the British Railways Board to provide information.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the Minister's Answer conflict with the arrangements made just before the Recess that statistics of this kind from nationalised industries would be provided? Would he consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the provision of this type of information? Secondly, would he ask the Railways Board to look closely at work of this kind being done in Swindon?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that my reply conflicts with that earlier decision, but I will look at the matter again. I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Proposed Closures, Scotland

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Transport what machinery exists for coordination between the Secretary of State

for Scotland and himself on railway closure policy.

Mr. Marples: The machinery is the normal one of direct consultation between Departments. I also consult my right hon. Friend on every proposed rail passenger closure in Scotland individually.

Mr. Lawson: Does the Minister realise that some of us examining what is happening in Scotland in this connection find it difficult to believe that there is any machinery at all? For example, three new towns are being completely deprived of any kind of rail transport. Does it not make nonsense of the kind of policy which the Secretary of State for Scotland is supposed to be pursuing if the Minister's Department appears to be cutting his right hon. Friend's feet from under him?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of assumptions which cannot be justified. The Question asks what machinery exists for co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. I can give the hon. Gentleman my personal assurance that I see my right hon. Friend on every single individual closure and consult with him.

Mr. Manuel: But does not the Minister understand that we find it very difficult to think that any real co-ordination exists when the Secretary of State has promised to set up a Scottish Transport Board to advise him about contemplated closures and, before the membership of that Board is even selected, closures are going on without its recommendations being submitted to the Secretary of State? This is really quite wrong, since the Secretary of State has committed himself to having such reports before he takes action.

Mr. Marples: The closures are only proposed. I repeat that there is this consultation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is generous in all matters, will accept my word in this respect.

Transport Users' Consultative Committees (Public Hearings)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to alter the present procedure at public hearings of the transport users' consultative committees when dealing with


rail closures, in order to give objectors an opportunity to reply to points made by the Railways Board representative.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Transport if he will review the procedure relating to the holding and the conduct of hearings under Section 56(13) of the Transport Act, 1962, by transport users' consultative committees, with a view to introducing legislation to standardise their practice.

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that the procedure at hearings in connection with railway closures will allow for the cross-examination by objectors of the representatives of the Railways Board with regard to the financial and other information submitted by the Board to the committee concerned.

. Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to ensure that objectors at public hearings of the transport users' consultative committee be given an opportunity to reply to points made by the Railways Board representative.

Mr. Marples: The transport users' consultative committees in general determine their own procedure. Committees allow objectors to ask any questions and make any statements relevant to the committee's functions. But it is not their function to consider the financial aspects of closure proposals.
The Central Committee can make recommendations to the area committees about their procedure, and I do not think that any further action is needed.

Mr. Manuel: Would not the Minister agree that it is supremely important that the general public should retain confidence in these public hearings? Is he aware that this confidence is being lost because all the objections are heard, and the railway spokesman replies, but there is no opportunity at these hearings to deal with anything apart from hardship? I am sure that the Minister will agree that if the public are losing confidence he should make some change in the legislation to enable a short preliminary statement to be made by the railway spokesmen.

Mr. Marples: Those making objections before the T.U.C.C. are really

allowed a fair hearing. They can make statements and ask questions, which are relevant to the T.U.C.C. which considers hardship and alternative services under Section 56 of the Act that this House passed, so the question of financial statements is really outside the purview of the T.U.C.C.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Minister will look al: this matter again, as there is a growing feeling that this procedure is becoming quite farcical. First, will he make sure that, as the Statute states, the hearing is in public? The only way in which that can properly be done is for the committee to advertise to the public where and when the inquiry is being held. Secondly, the Minister must surely agree that in order to give objectors a proper opportunity, the committee ought to sit in a place and at a time suitable to the objectors rather than to the convenience of the committee. Third, the order in which evidence is taken should be such as to give a fair hearing to the people concerned. Further, will the Minister look into the question of the presence of people who, as I see it, have no right by Statute to be there?

Mr. Marbles: These meetings are held in public. There is no statutory requirement that they should be, but the spirit of the Act is that they should be held in public. In the case of two meetings in Scotland, on 11th October and 18th October, the Press was not formally invited, but all the objectors who had laid objections—and who are, by law, the only people entitled to give evidence to the T.U.C.C.—were individually notified of the hearing, so they were not deprived in any way. As regards the next part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think that any committee—and I go right through all their minutes—has ever refused to hear anyone who has said that he was a user of the transport services.

Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all those who have attended these committee meetings as objectors or observers are very dissatisfied with the procedure at them? Will he have a complete review of the procedure, instead of allowing each committee to determine its own rules and regulations? Is the Minister aware that there is particular objection to the fact that the Railways Board produces what is often quite


contentious information, and that there is no opportunity for objectors to cross-examine the Railway Board's representatives on the information they are putting forward?

Mr. Marples: If the information put forward at one of these T.U.C.C. hearings is germane and relative to the scope of the inquiry, statements may be made and questions asked—[Hon. Members: "No."]—yes, they can. It depends on the chairman of each committee deciding on the procedure he thinks is right. If questions and statements are irrelevant and prolix, he does not allow them, but it is up to him.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that it is precisely the scope of questioning that needs looking into, because many districts where closures are envisaged have become development districts? That leads to shift in population, which means that the consultative committees must be more flexible in their hearings than in the past?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member misconceives the function of a T.U.C.C. It has to decide on hardship and alternative services only. If there is any other point than hardship I have asked the local councils to send a letter to me, with copies to the other Departments concerned—on such matters as industrial development, housing estates, and so on.

Sir J. MacLeod: Will my right hon. Friend look at this again? He knows of the closures announced north of Inverness. Last August, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that there was to be a Highland Transport Board. Surely these closures north of Inverness should go before that Board, as there are many other factors beside hardship to be looked at.

Mr. Marples: As I say, no closures have been made. There are proposals for closures, but they have to go through the statutory machinery. I shall consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to take all these additional points into account.

Mr. Strauss: I Will the Minister clear up an important point? The Act says that the transport users'consultative committees can look into matters of hardship and report to the Minister. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that hardship includes loss of prospec-

tive employment in an area? If he agrees that it does, the committees should surely be allowed to consider that point, take evidence on it, and make recommendations on it to the Minister.

Mr. Marples: It is hardship to the individual user of those particular lines now. Each user knows perfectly well whether there will be hardship for him in a particular closure. He is then entitled to make any representations he likes, and the T.U.C.C. listens to him and makes what judgment it likes. It then comes to me, and the other considerations are taken into account.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my point—perhaps he did not catch it. Possible economic developments in an area which may be jeopardised by a closure is surely hardship to the people in the area, because it means they may lose jobs that they might otherwise have had. Is it not, therefore, right that under Section 56 the committees should be able to consider that aspect?

Mr. Marples: The T.U.C.C. considers travelling hardship to the individual, who can perfectly well assess for himself the likely hardship to him when a line is proposed to be closed, and that hardship is taken into account. I consult my right hon. Friends, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour on questions of local employment.

Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, WOOLWICH

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich.
As the House knows, we have recently been examining the problem of spare capacity in the Weapons and Fighting Vehicles Group of Royal Ordnance Factories.


Woolwich and Nottingham are the only two factories left within this group which make guns and do general engineering. Their combined productive capacity is now considerably more than double the highest foreseeable peacetime needs. Excess of capacity on this scale represents a waste of resources in skilled manpower and idle plant, and makes good management extremely difficult. Moreover, it produces a highly unsatisfactory situation for our employees, in that it is impossible to guarantee them a full and continuous programme of work.
In these circumstances, the right course is to bring our productive capacity into line with what we need. The Government have, therefore, decided to begin to run down the Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich, so that it should finally close in about 2½ years' time.
Gun manufacture and miscellaneous general engineering will be concentrated at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Nottingham. The cost will be about £½m. capital and there will be savings as a result of this reorganisation of over £1m. a year.
At present, the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich, has about 3,800 employees. We should, in any event, have had to declare a redundancy of about 500 men now: these will not begin to leave the factory until early 1964. A further 2,500 will ultimately cease to work there. The House will share out concern for their future employment. Woolwich is part of the Greater London area, where employment prospects generally are good. In view of the fact that the run-down will be spread over 2½ years, we do not expect that there will be difficulty in finding alternative work for most of the men who become redundant.
Retraining facilities for those who may need them are available at the three existing Government Training Centres in the London area: an additional centre will open at Stratford, north of the river, towards the end of next year. Courses of training at the factory itself could be arranged if further facilities were needed.
The Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich occupies only part of a War Department estate of 1,193 acres. Over half of this acreage is already vacant.

Part of the remainder is occupied by the factory, and the rest has other Government establishments as actual or prospective tenants. In view of London's housing needs I propose, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to offer to the London County Council not less than 500 acres of land at once.
For the rest, the whole site must be developed to the best advantage in the interests of Woolwich and of London generally. The Government are, therefore, reviewing urgently present and future activities at the western end of the estate, where the factory is to close.
In view of the Army's long and historic association with Woolwich Arsenal, I announce this decision with deep regret. But, in the long run, two things matter most: that skilled resources should be used to the full to the benefit of the community and not kept under-employed; and that those who now work at Woolwich should have the prospect of steady and continuous employment which our factory can no longer provide.
Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's plans for housing, and the development of the remainder of the estate to which I have referred, I believe that the future interests of those who live in Woolwich and those who work in the factory will be best served in this way.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will cause deep regret and concern? Is he aware that the case for keeping the R.O.F., Woolwich, is not based on past services to the country, long and splendid as these have been, but on the fact that the expenditure of several millions of pounds on modernising and concentrating the R.O.F. in recent years has made it thoroughly efficient and competitive; and on the fact that the level of employment there has now reached that recommended by the Perrott Committee?
Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the results of the inquiry on which this decision has been based, so that we can be quite sure that the decision is taken on objective factors and not on any hostility to public enterprise on the part of the Government? Secondly, will he receive a deputation from the Borough of Woolwich of those affected?
In conclusion, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the building land question is totally different from that of the closing down of the R.O.F.? Is he aware that 600 acres of building land have been available there for over ten years, in spite of pressure on the Government? Why have the Government waited this time to make an announcement, and why this long delay in what is perhaps the most extraordinary example of waste of building land in the whole country?

Mr. Ramsden: This decision was taken by me as a result of an examination carried out by me upon advice and I cannot undertake to publish the results—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—of any inquiry. But, naturally, I will attempt to satisfy hon. Members of the reasons for our having reached the decision which we have reached. The hon. Member asks me about a deputation. Of course I would see him or any hon. Member who wished to discuss this with me. On the question of the possibility of more general representations, I would say that there are the normal staff channels by which these can be made, and I think that we should stick to them, in the first place.
On the question of the building land, it is true to say that by taking this decision we have to some extent cleared the way for a decision to be taken about the building land. This decision will help to achieve what I am sure the hon. Member wishes to achieve as much as we do—a future for the district of Woolwich which he represents.

Mr. Turner: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the land which is to be released is in addition to that which his predecessor announced, in reply to a Question which I put down, as being available for housing? Can he also assure me that everything possible will be done to meet the difficulties which will arise over lack of employment for people in the Royal Arsenal? Can he give some indication of the number of additional jobs which may be made available by the transfer of units from Kidbrooke and elsewhere to the War Office Department land in Woolwich?

Mr. Ramsden: There are about 1,000 acres in the estate. Five hundred acres

are now offered to the London County Council for housing. As a result of the further examination of the possible development of the site to which I have referred, it may be possible that some further land will be thrown up. My hon. Friend asked about employment prospects. I shall be in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and we will seek to do anything that we can do on the lines which I have already indicated, especially in the way of retraining.

Mr. Marsh: Will the Minister tell us why, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), he stated that the taxpayers are not to be told the basis upon which he came to his decision? Will he say which operations which can be carried out under private enterprise arms manufacture cannot be carried out in Woolwich Arsenal? Is he aware that many people think that he has deliberately taken action against a public body for the benefit of private corporations?

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. There is no inquiry the results of which could be published, in the sense which I believe the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) had in mind.
We have reached this decision because there is no longer enough work, nor canwe foresee there being enough work, for two factories. The only course, therefore, was to concentrate the work available into one unit which can do the job efficiently, and for the purpose in question Nottingham was the most suitable.

Mr. W. Clark: In view of the fact that tank manufacturing is to be concentrated at Nottingham, will there not be an increase in employment at the R.O.F. Nottingham? Can my right hon. Friend therefore give an assurance that there will be no more redundancies in Nottingham and that those workers who were made redundant in the last year will be given preferential treatment if there is an increase in the labour force at the R.O.F.?

Mr. Ramsden: I will bear in mind the point which my hon. Friend made as we come to work out the details of the reorganisation of Nottingham.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that Woolwich Arsenal probably means more to Woolwich, and has meant more to Woolwich, than almost any other factory has meant to any other constituency in the country? Is he aware that it is not for hon. Members who represent places as far away as Harrogate and Leeds, West to comment on this matter other than with the greatest degree of sympathy? Is he aware that there will be a sense of complete outrage unless he sees the civil leaders on this matter? Will he also bear in mind that a distinguished predecessor of his, Sir Kingsley Wood, had an honourable record in this regard? Will he think again on this matter, and take it from me that we have had a most insensitive performance at the Box this afternoon?

Mr. Ramsden: I fully share the feelings which the hon. Member has expressed about Woolwich and, indeed, I tried to express them myself. As for receiving representations, I want to be as helpful as I can. All that I did not wish to do—and this was my reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East—was to get outside the normal and accepted machinery for handling representations of this kind. I think that that is accepted by both sides of the House. I think that we should observe those in the first place, but I will certainly consider the request made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).

Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that £5 million to £6 million has been spent over the last few years in bringing this factory up to a state of high efficiency? If this is so, would he say what studies he made of the possibility of using this factory for civil and export work? Having a valuable plant of this kind, with the skilled manpower available and mobilised there, does he not feel that it could make a big contribution to exports? Why does he not put civil work into this factory?

Mr. Ramsden: On my information, the right hon. Gentleman's figure of £5 million to £6 million is rather out. It is true that £2½ million has been spent since 1955 on what was at the time a necessary measure of reorganisation and

contraction—necessary because at that time there was a job of work for Woolwich to do and Woolwich had to be reorganised so as to do that job of work. The future of the factory will be one of the questions at which we shall urgently look during the course of the review which I mentioned. We will certainlybear his suggestion in mind. But I think that it would be misleading to suggest that this factory, which is a specialised factory for the production of munitions, could make an easy transition to some other kind of work.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter now without a Question before the House.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. As the information which has been given will be a shattering blow to many of my constituents, who will expect me to be able to say something when an announcement like this is made, may I not be allowed to say a few words?

Mr. Speaker: The expectation of the constituent:, of a number of hon. Members must have been similarly disappointed, but I have to remember the interests of the House as a whole and what we have to do today.

JAMAICA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Jamaica and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (GIFT OF A BOOKCASE AND A GAVEL)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a bookcase containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books, together with a gavel for the


Speaker, to the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,

That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

CLASS VI

VOTE 5. GENERAL GRANTS TO LOCAL REVENUES, ENGLAND AND WALES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,750,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for general grants to local authorities in England and Wales.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [3rd December]:
That this House welcomes the emphasis placed by Her Majesty's Government on regional development as a means of promoting the growth and well-being of the country, and, in particular, approves the programmes outlined in the Command Papers on development and growth in North-East England and Central Scotland (Command Papers Nos. 2206 and 2188).—[Mr. Heath.]

Which Amendment was, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
regrets that Her Majesty's Government's belated proposals for regional development while omitting many important areas, offer neither any immediate effective help nor a long-term remedy for unemployment and depopulation, declares its determination to ensure healthy and balanced development of all parts of the United Kingdom, and asserts that this will be achieved only through regional planning within the framework of a national plan".—[Mr. Jay.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I wish to divide what I have to say into four parts: first, to discuss briefly some of the planning aspects of the two Reports which have been published; secondly, to complete what I believe is a partial and inadequate diagnosis of the trouble in the older industrial regions in the two Reports; thirdly, to take up where my right lion. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) left off yesterday and to say a few words about the central theme of the two Reports; and, finally, to discuss briefly a theme which I believe should figure much more prominently in these Reports, namely, training and education.
If I refer mainly to the North-East it is simply because the North-East Report has been published, and because I know more about the North-East than about other areas. One of the most intriguing things about these two White Papers is the difference in the titles. The title of the White Paper on the North-East is, A programme for regional development and growth. The title for Scotland is, A programme for development and growth. In other words, we have had "regional" inserted and Scotland has not.
The North-East Report throughout places an emphasis on the regional aspect of the Government's plans. Page 40 says:
The Government's proposals for the North-East are based on the concept of an underlying unity in its main problems and needs, and this concept will have to be carried through into future public planning and public action.
Apparently this is the Lord President of the Council's great discovery—that future public action in the North-East, and, presumably, in other industrial areas, must be done on a regional basis. Are the Government unaware—they appear to be unaware—of the movement towards regionalisation which has taken place in the North-East during the last five years?
During the last five years, on the initiative of the northern group of Labour Members of Parliament, the North-East Development Council has been established, in the face of considerable oppo-

sition from at least one hon. Member opposite, and in the face of violent opposition from the leader of the Conservatives in Newcastle. One part of the North-East Development Council's organisation is a very useful device called a Joint Planning Beard—something quite new, I think. All the planning officers in the North-East meet regularly as a joint board to discuss their mutual problems. I should have thought that this piece of machinery is the type of machinery which the Government could use in their plans, but it is not referred to in the White Paper on the North-East.
Secondly, during the last few years a North-East Arts Council has been established. The Arts Council of Great Britain referred to it in its last report as a prototype which could be followed in other regions. Recently, we have established a North-East Regional Airports Committee. We are now busy establishing a North-East Youth Council. We have smaller groupings for such topics as river pollution, the Tees-Side University, industrial housing, and so on.
The movement towards regionalism has been going on for years. I hope that the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are listening to what I am saying, otherwise I am wasting my time. This movement, this great new dynamic discovery of the Lord President of the Council's that there must be a regional concept, has, in fact, been evolving in the North-East for the past five or six years. However, even if Lord Hailsham has not noticed anything that is going on, we are glad that at least he has arrived at the idea of a regional concept independently of the rest of us.
In passing, I should like to say a few words on the Local Government Boundary Commission's proposals for the North-East. In my view, these are already completely out of date. If the Government persist in these proposals, they will put the local authorities in the North-East at each other's throats once again. This will be a reversion to parochialism, and it will reverse the movement which has been going on in the last five or six years from parochialism towards a North-East regional outlook.
What I suggest to the Government—it is not much use suggesting it to this Government, because they have only


another six months, but perhaps I can suggest it to my right hon. Friends behind me—is that they allow the development which is going on in the North-East to go on for the next decade. I should think that it is pretty certain that there will evolve a universal desire in the North-East for some kind of two-tier local government on a regional basis. The Local Government Boundary Commission's Report is already left far behind by the movement which is evolving in that part of the world.
However, in spite of the fact that the Government have discovered the regional concept, they pay merely lip-service to the idea of regional planning, because this White Paper cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called planning in the popular and usually accepted sense of that word. First, as the Amendment says, regional planning in a small tightly knit community like Great Britain does not make sense, unless it is in the context of a national economic plan. I can well imagine that perhaps in some vast countries such as Russia or the United States regional planning in isolation would make sense, but in a tightly knit economy like Great Britain it does not make sense.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State went out of his way to make it absolutely clear that the Government reject any idea of a national economic plan. He said this:
I suggest that this is not a situation which calls for a cut and dried plan of the kind they"—
that is us—
suggest, imposing a rigid theoretical framework on the different regions whether they fit into it or not."—[Official Report, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1002.]
In view of that it would perhaps be as well to put on record just exactly what we say in the important document Signposts for the Sixties about the national economic plan. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen very carefully to this, because he did not have the document yesterday. He had only a handout from the Conservative Central Office. We say this:
The preparation of such a plan would require the creation of a National Industrial Planning Board, integrated with the Government's own planning machinery and in close touch with both sides of industry. The central

directive of this Board would be to ensure speedy and purposive industrial investment.
In consultation with industry, the Board would work out the expansion plans of the basic sectors of the economy and see that the resources are there to meet them. In consultation with the Government departments concerned, it would direct the industrial expansion to areas where labour is available and where new work is needed.
There is nothing there about a rigid and inflexible national plan.
The Minister without Portfolio, who, like the Scarlet Pimpernel, keeps on popping up all over the country, said pretty much the same thing. The Guardian of Wednesday, 13th November, contained this report of one of his utterances:
Mr. Deedes said that a single Ministry to co-ordinate the work of the various Government departments involved in economic and physical planning would not produce the atmosphere, the machinery, the partnership or the co-operation necessary to tackle the vast job of redesign and renewal which lay ahead.
Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the Government intend to maintain their doctrinaire view that national economic planning is undesirable.
Secondly, these White Papers involve no basis whatever of physical planning of the regions. We must be quite clear about that. We are to have a regional group of senior officials meeting in Well-bar House, Newcastle. This is desirable, but it is exactly what the Labour Government did—a piece of machinery which this Government scrapped when it came to office. However, this is coordination. This is not planning. The local planning authorities, the county councils and the county boroughs, will still be watertight compartments, and they are the people to do the social and the industrial planning in their own areas, not the regional group of officials.
I believe that one of the major impediments to the development of the older industrial areas in recent years has been the fact that very often the planning authorities function in isolation from each other. The Town and Country Planning Association published only yesterday a memorandum on the Government's plan for the North-East. This is what the Association said:
The Government's proposals do not amount to a comprehensive regional plan for land use and development. We believe that such a plan now needs to be produced, so as to provide a satisfactory framework for


better housing, social facilities, and recreation and cultural facilities, as well as for economic growth.
This plan for the North-East does nothing in the way of physical planning of the area.
Thirdly, a major aim in both White Papers is to improve the quality of living in these regions. I entirely agree that this is an essential. In improving the quality of living, in improving the social context for economic development, I agree again with the White Papers that housing is the most important thing of all. I should have thought, if this is the case, that the starting point for the Government's plan on houses would have been an estimate of the number of houses required over the next few years. There is no estimate whatever in the document on the North-East of the number of houses required. It says that the Government have decided—these are not the actual words; the document uses words to this effect; the words "have decided" are certainly there—to step up the number of houses to 25,000 a year. The document merely says that the Government have decided.

Mr. Paul Williams: Jolly good.

Mr. Short: But on what is this based? It is simply a wild guess and nothing else. It is based on completely insufficient data.
I will give two examples of data which are lacking. How can an estimate be made, unless some research is carried out into the number of houses in the region with five years' life, 10 years' life, 15 years' life, and 20 years' life? An important point in the so-called plan is a growth area. There will be many people travelling to work from South-West Durham and other parts of the region into the growth area. The White Paper says that it is an easy area in which to travel to work.
I wish that the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade would come with me on a winter's morning at six o'clock to Ushaw Moor, or Crook, and try to get to Darlington by nine o'clock. They would see just how difficult it is. There will be many thousands of people travelling from this area into the growth zone. They wish to settle down there. Is there any estimate of the number of new houses

required because of this growth zone proposal? Of course, there is no such estimate. The Government have not a clue on these things. They have simply made a wild guess that the North-East should have 25,000 new houses a year.
I would not call this planning. It is guessing. There is a section on industrial housing. The dynamic proposal there is that there should be a conference at Newcastle University in January. I am glad that there is to be a conference, but that is the only proposal. Do the Secretary of State and the Lord President of the Council know that for many months new, long before the Lord President of the Council came to the North-East, the local authorities in the North-East formed a committee to discuss and consider industrialised housing? Do they know that this committee exists? Do they know that it is working?
I should have thought that this sector was an ideal sector for development in the North-East, and, indeed, in Scotland, of some intelligent planning in the standardisation of housing components and their production, too. It might well be an ideal field for partnership between public and private enterprise. This is one sector where there is scope for some imaginative planningproposals. The only proposal is that there is to be a conference in January.
Fourthly, with regard to transport. A few months ago we had the Beeching plan. Was not that a Government plan as well? Is not the Beeching plan Government policy as well? Did not the Minister of Transport, who has had such a busy time today, defend the Beeching plan in the House and say, "This is just the thing to put Britain on its feet"? Of course he did.

Mr. Douglas Jay: On its feet, yes.

Mr. Short: Apart from the effects of the Beeching plan on the North East economy—that will be pretty drastic—the plan will mean a loss of 2,000 jobs to the North-East. This leaves out of account the workshop closures. Yet the White Paper says this, on page 23:
The Railway facilities of the North-East are reasonably good …
Is the Secretary of State aware that if the Beeching proposals to close down 70 passenger services and 17 stations


are carried out there will be no railways in County Durham west of the main line from Newcastle to Darlington?
What cockeyed planning is this? We have a Beeching reorganisation of the railways in isolation from the roads. We now have a Hailsham reorganisation of the roads in isolation from the railways. We are now told in the White Paper that there is to be another Beeching reorganisation of the railways in the North-East. I will not read it out; it is paragraph 66 on page 23.
I understand that the Secretary of State wants to repudiate Beeching in the North-East, just as the Prime Minister has done here in the House. I repeat: was not the Beeching Report Government policy, too? Did not the Minister of Transport come here and defend it and say, "This is just the thing for Britain"? It is nonsense to pass off all this as intelligent planning. It is nothing of the sort.
Perhaps the most basic figure of all in any regional economic plan, one would have thought, would be an estimate of the number of jobs needed over the next few years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has raised this question in the House on many occasions. In the whole of the plan for the north-east of England there is no estimate of the number of new jobs required. Is not this amazing? We are told that this document is the great new departure, the great new dynamic plan for the North-East. Yet it contains no estimate of how many new jobs are needed over the next five years, 10 years, 100 years or anything else.
In the early part of the White Paper there is an obscure and almost incomprehensible calculation on population growth. Eventually, we are given figures of the male labour force. Do the Government not know that we have some women in the North-East as well? The whole of this Report is on the basis of the male labour force, but women have got to live and work, too.
But there is no estimate whatever of the number of jobs needed. The main trends in the North-East are known, the rate of population growth and basic industries. Even assuming that the Government made very wild

guesses about things like migration, and the effects of their efforts, I should have thought it would be possible to arrive at some kind of estimate of the number of jobs needed over the next five to ten years.
But really, how can there be economic planning if the size of the problem about which they are planning is not estimated? There is no estimate at all here about the problem we are trying to solve. Has there been any research into the kind of industry which the older industrial areas need? Has there been even any research into the kind of industries which have done well in this part of the country since the war? There is no mention of it here, even if there has been.
This really is a misuse of the word "planning". What we have in these two documents—and no doubt other areas will get similar documents—is a collection of pious hopes, platitudes, and expedients many of which have already been done, and things which the region is doing itself, which the local authorities are doing; and the whole lot are banged together in a thing called a "dynamic economic plan" brought out in the eleventh hour of the Government's life.
In all the diagnoses of what is wrong in these areas, we are told in the document, we were told yesterday by the Secretary of State, who kept on repeating it, and it is on page 10 of the White Paper, that
It is indeed in the balance of the region's industries that the main cause of the problem is to be found.
It is true that we have got too many men working in the heavy industries, 16 per cent. in coal mining, 7 per cent. in shipbuilding and repairing and marine engineering, 6 per cent.in metal manufacturing. This is too many. This makes the North-East, as it does other areas, vulnerable.
The North-East, Scotland, South Wales, West Cumberland all want diversity of industry. But this is not the cause of the recent unemployment. After all, in 1951 there was much less diversity than there is now, yet there was full employment. How can lack of diversity be the cause of the unemployment? The recent unemployment in the North-East, in Scotland, in West


Cumberland, in the South-West, in South Wales is due directly to three elements in the Government's economic policy, but there is no mention of that in the report at all.
The first two factors I shall refer to only very briefly. The first factor is, of course, the complete inadequacy of the instrument which the Government devised for dealing with unemployment, the Local Employment Act. The Government inherited some extremely useful powers for the distribution of industry—from the Labour Government. They scrapped the lot, to put in their place a thing called the Local Employment Act.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State gave us some amazing figures about what the Local Employment Act is doing. I will quote some Answers which were given to some Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) in this House in May this year. He asked how many new industries had established themselves in the North-East in the three years ended April, 1963;and how many people they now employ. The Minister replied that 18 new firms had come into the North-East and 2,288 people were employed in them. Eighteen firms and 2,288 jobs in three years.
My hon. Friend also asked how many firms had ceased production in the North-East during the same three years and how many people had left their jobs consequently, and the reply was that 33 firms had ceased production and 3,600 jobs had gone out of existence.
In other words, in the three years' operation of the Local Employment Act 18 new enterprises were brought in, 33 have gone out of existence, 2,200 new jobs had been created, and 3,600 jobs have gone out of existence. That is what the Local Employment Act has done to the North-East. That is why we say that this instrument which the Government devised is quite inadequate.
I shall quote only one more thing about this. Here is someone who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a Labour supporter. He is the Chairman of the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England, appointed by the Government. This is what he had to say quite recently about

the Local Employment Act. He said that the Local Employment Act failed to encourage the use of the area's total assets. He went on to say that he believed that the Local Employment Act was totally inappropriate to handle the situation. This is a public official appointed by the Government, and he went on to give a number of examples.
That is the first point on Government policy, that it has failed to cure unemployment; it is the failure of the instrument which they created.
The second I want to deal with very briefly, because I have no doubt that if they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friends will deal with it, and it is the Government's savage policy towards the two publicly-owned industries, coal mines and the railways.
We agree that the railways and the coal mines must be modernised and brought up to date, but the rate at which this is being done is really wicked. It is all very well to sit here in the House of Commons and discuss the figures of pit closures, but this is a matter of men who have given their lives to this industry. It is a matter of communities—of whole communities—dying, withering away, inNorthumberland, Durham; of men uprooted, of families who have been living there for generations, uprooted in order to work elsewhere. That is what pit closures mean.
Could not this have been done sensibly, with pit closures co-ordinated with the introduction of new industries? Surely it is not beyond the wit and ingenuity of the Government now, with all their machinery at their disposal, to co-ordinate: the bringing in of new industries with the closing of pits?
That is the second reason for the unemployment, and unless there is some slowing down in the contraction of the coal mines, nothing the Government do will prevent a further rapid rise in unemployment in the North-East.
But the third point which I really want to discuss is the Government's complete refusal to plan the country's resources, and their reliance entirely on blunt monetary controls. The party opposite, in weekend speeches, are always trying to make the hair of the electorate stand on end about physical controls, but physical controls cause far


less misery and suffering among the mass of the people than this monetary control which they have been using for the last decade. This monetary control has put tens of thousands of people on the dole, and kept them on the dole, too. Every time, during the last 10 years, that there has been an appreciable rise in production they have immediately imposed a credit squeeze. The severe unemployment in 1962 and 1963 had nothing to do with over-reliance on heavy industry, but it was the direct consequence of the two Budgets of the present Leader of the House. It was for that that they appointed him. It was that economic policy which caused our heavy unemployment last winter, and the Government know that.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State had this to say, that
… the intense local pressures in the Midlands and in the South, which often, in the past, have endangered the price structure for the country as a whole and, as a result, the balance of payments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol 685, c. 985.]
The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the effect of the inflationary symptoms in the South-East and the Midlands, and, of course, this is perfectly true; but the Government had only one cure for that, and their cure, applied periodically throughout the 'fifties, was to apply the same remedy to the North-East and to Scotland and West Cumberland and South Wales and the South-West.
We all had to take the medicine. It was like a woman with eight children of whom one has tummy ache; she gives castor oil to the lot of them. It may cure the one, certainly, but it upsets all the others. This is the thing which has been killing the North-East throughout the last 10 years, and there is no Member on the other side of the House who does not know it.
The White Paper on the North-East now recognises this and, on page 15, says:
Considerable further industrial development is needed in the region to provide a base for faster self-generating growth there, but no amount of special effort or expenditure on the region itself will stimulate this unless there is also sustained growth in the country as a whole.
What a pity that the Government did not have the grace also to shoulder the

blame clearly implied in this sentence. Unless the Government are now prepared to put the national well-being before the political advantage of the pre-election boom, all these reports and White Papers are not worth the paper they are written on.
The heavy industrial pattern in all our old industrial areas has been the first to be hit by the credit squeeze and the last to be benefited by the let-rip periods which come before elections. In other words, prosperity in the older industrial regions has been sacrificed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to keep themselves in power. That is exactly what has happened. We in the North-East, in Scotland, in Wales, in West Cumberland and in the South-West are paying the price for their retention of power during the 1950s.
Thirdly, I come to the central feature of these reports. The central feature of the whole design, if 4here is a design, is that if more capital investment is pumped into these old regions the areas will be made more attractive and will attract new industries into them. This is on the assumption that there is sufficient industryon the move to satisfy the North-East, to satisfy Scotland, to satisfy West Cumberland, to satisfy Wales, to satisfy the South-West and the North-West. Personally, I have never yet had it demonstrated to me by anyone that there is sufficient industry on the move to do this, and I do not think that there is. It is no use perfecting one's fishing tackle if there are not any fish to be caught in the pond.
All of us, on both sides of the House, until now have been wedded to the idea of the stick and the carrot, the stick in the negative powers of the Board of Trade to forbid development elsewhere, and the carrot in the promotional work done by local authorities and regional development councils, and so on. The technique of the stick and the carrot is effective only if there is a good supply of donkeys, and I am sure that the supply is not there.
The Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Town and Country Planning Association, Professor Peter Self, had this to say:
Life must be pumped back into the main provincial centres to ease the economic dominance of London. We needed a stronger


policy on industrial location; a real effort on office location policy; and a national plan for dealing with obsolescence.
The Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Wales, Professor Michael Fogarty, said:
We can now afford to be much bolder than previously in reshaping the broad pattern of industry and office location …location policy had been too negative, concentrating too much on relieving unemployment.
It might be possible to persuade industry to move by imposing various forms of extra taxation in over-congested areas; or planning authorities might be given powers to acquire 30 or 40 year reservations on all major industrial and commercial sites in their areas.
Those are two concrete suggestions, but attracting new developments is inadequate for the size of the problem. The North-East Development Council has estimated that the North-East alone needs 100,000 jobs in the next five years.
Two more things need to be done. Not only must we try to attract industries which are on the move, but there must be some policy to dislodge industry from the South-East, either by the sort of means suggested by Professor Fogarty, or by outright purchase of industrial undertakings in the South-East and reopening them in the older industrial areas. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite do not accept this sort of policy, perhaps they will tell us what they would do.
But even this will not solve the problem. There must be a third step. First there is the attracting of new industry and, secondly, the dislodging of old, and then a third step must be taken.

Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the tax concessions given to industry to come to the North-East more or less follow the suggestion of Professor Fogarty? He has spoken of the little which happened until April of this year. Is he not aware that 110 building grants have been approved in principle, amounting to £2½ million for the North-East since April?

Mr. Short: Of course everything happens in the months before the election. It always does.
The third step, in addition to attracting new industries and dislodging old, is that new, publicly-owned enterprises, based upon ideas thrown up by pub-

licly-financed research, should be developed in these areas on a deliberate plan. For example, the perfect antidote to the over-reliance of the North-East on a few heavy industries would be the electronics industry. Incidentally, electronics factories which are there do extremely well. This is the sort of thing in which new, publicly-owned enterprises could be established, either outright publicly owned, or joint enterprises.
There is nothing new in this. It is being done in many countries where the word "Socialism" is never used, if that is what bothers hon. Members opposite. Of course, we cannot expect the Government to do anything of the kind, but I make it absolutely clear that the Labour Government, which comes into office next year, will do just this. It will establish new either outright publicly-owned industries in the old areas, or joint enterprises based upon ideas thrown up by publicly-financed research. This must be the third step to get the right amount of work into the old areas.
I want now to refer to additional capital investment. This is the biggest hoax of all. The older industrial regions are suffering from a century of depredation by private enterprise. [Interruption,] The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has been only once to the North-East since; taking up his new appointment, but he has seen the industrial layout there. In the nineteenth century, industrialists attracted from all over the country great communities around their pits, around their factories and around their shipyards. When there was nothing more to be got out of them, they discarded them and allowed them to deteriorate and die. If hon. Members want to sue a ghost town, they need not go to Colorado Springs and take a trip to the foot hills of the Rockies. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham. North-West (Mr. Ainsley) can show them ghost towns in Durham which have been caused by their policies.
However, from these communities, ships, coal, railway engines and steel have raised the standard of living for the whole country, not just for the North-East, but for Bournemouth and London and Bognor Regis and the


whole lot. What has happened to the North-East has benefited the whole of Great Britain, and that goes for Scotland and the other industrial areas.
The gist of these dynamic plans, this great new departure, is that the North-East and Scotland are now to be allowed to put matters right. That is what it amounts to. The Government are giving us permission to put matters right. They are giving us permission to obliterate a century of pillage in five or ten years. Thank you for nothing! They are telling us that we can now demolish all the slums. We can now renew the decaying hearts of our towns and rebuild our schools, and so on. There is one little thing which they have tor-gotten—who is to pay for it all? Of course, we shall get the normal grant under the iniquitous block grant system which this Government introduced.
One of the choicest things in this Report appears on page 24, where it refers to Newcastle City centre. It says that this is an imaginative plan which has been worked out by the council, and it goes on to say:
This is in keeping with the needs and importance of what is in effect the regional capital; and the Government's intention will be that the public investment programme should allow this work to be pressed on as fast as possible.
Do the Government know how much it will cost? It will cost £150 million. When the Lord President of the Council was in Newcastle, the corporation met him and asked him for a Government loan with a moratorium on interest payments for five years until some income was derived from the developments. There is no mention of that here.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): There is no need for a moratorium.

Mr. Short: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he is to give Newcastle Council a free loan for five years, I shall sit down and let him say so.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should know that under the law put on the Statute Book by the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir)—oh, I see that my hon. Friend is here.

Mr. Rupert Speir: rose—

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) gave way to the Minister. The Floor belongs to my hon. Friend. It is not for the Minister to give way to one of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The House is well aware that the hon. Member making a speech has the Floor. If he gives way, and if another hon. Member intervenes and the hon. Member who has the Floor does not seek to rise, I allow the intervention.

Mr. Speir: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member who has the Floor insists on continuing his speech, he is entitled to do so.

Mr. Short: There is a further choice paragraph in the Report. It is paragraph 76, on page 25.

Mr. Speir: On a point of order. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) made a completely false statement about the situation—

Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does not appear to be rising on what is, in fact, a point of order.

Mr. Short: Paragraph 76 is headed "Urban improvements generally" and says:
There must also be continual improvement in a wide range of civic facilities, from libraries and swimming baths to street lighting and public gardens, and the renovation of areas not due for reconstruction.
This paragraph on the provisions of—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite went to public schools. I never went to one.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, Northwest): On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman said that all hon. Members on this side of the House went to public schools. I did not go to one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that the House would make better progress with this important debate if hon. Members were a little quieter.

Mr. P. Williams: Let us have a "short" speech.

Mr. Short: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) cannot learn manners as well.

Mr. Speir: It is Section 8 of my Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963.

Mr. Short: This paragraph on the provision of amenities ends by saying:
The local authorities of the North-East know this, and the Government propose to allow for a substantial increase in the investment programme.
Who is to make these investments? The rates in Newcastle will go up 25 per cent. over the next five years, quite apart from these developments. The Government have never had the courage to face the problem of local finance, yet now they are saying, in effect, to the North-East and to Scotland, "Go ahead and modernise yourselves; pull yourselves up by your stocking tops". Will not the rates in these areas deter industrial development if this burden is put on the local authorities themselves?
If this goes ahead as the Government are planning it, the rates in the older industrial areas will be considerably higher than those in the South-East and the Midlands. If this task of rehabilitation is to be regarded mainly as a regional task, it will put a colossal burden on ratepayers in this part of the country. Surely the burden of correcting the effects of the industrial revolution should be a national one.
Another choice part of the Report is that which deals with pollution of the River Tyne. It says, on page 28:
The Minister of Housing and Local Government intends to encourage the authorities to get on with this work as quickly as possible.
The lowest estimate for doing this is £20 million, and yet the Government are to encourage the authorities to get on with this job. I have tabled a number of Questions about this and no financial assistance whatsoever appears to be forthcoming from the Government for doing this work. The rehabilitation of

these old areas is a national responsibility and none of the regions will be satisfied with any plan which fails to offer more financial help than is proposed here.
Finally, I deal with training and education. The basic problem in all the old industrial areas is to change and redeploy their traditional skills. Because of this, I should have thought that any sensible, intelligent, plan would make training, retraining and education its central feature. What do we find in the North-East plan? We find that training and education are lumped together in Chapter VI under the heading "Progress in other fields." This simply indicates the Government's lack of understanding of the real needs of these older industrial regions.
The proposals for training are to step up three training centres at Felling, Tursdale and Middlesbrough to 400, 100, and 200 places respectively. These are not additional places, but the total places when the proposals have been put into practice. It means a total of 700 places—and only for men—against an estimated annual need of 20,000 places for men who will need to change their jobs in the North-East. This really is merely scratching the surface.
There are three paragraphs dealing with education, and in these paragraphs there is not one single proposal of any kind on education. Do the Government know that the North-East does not have a college of advanced technology? Do they know that it is the only important region in the country without such a college? Did they see Lord Fleck's letter in The Times of 21st November? He said:
For a paper, however, dealing with a region where, heavy industry necessarily plays a large part, some of us have reason to be disappointed at the meagreness of the suggestions regarding higher technological education.
He went on to say what the White Paper says, and then said:
I would suggest that these praises convey an expression of achievement, not to say complacency, which the present circumstances in the Region do not warrant. Colleges of Advanced Technology are now an accepted and important component of higher technological education, and the fact that the Region does not have the benefits of one, not does the White Paper make any such proposal are two regrettable facts.


Lord Hailsham—Mr. Hogg—quite obviously knows nothing whatever about the state of affairs in the technical colleges in the North-East. He said recently that the colleges of technology in the North-East had failed to produce courses of an adequate standard. The Chairman of the Sunderland Education Committee replied to this allegation in The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph last week, setting out all the courses that were available in Sunderland.
A similar tremendous range of courses is available in the College of Technology in Newcastle, including three diplomas in technology, a B.Sc. in Sociology, general studies or engineering, and a whole range of other courses. Quite obviously, the Lord President of the Council does not know anything about it. He should learn the facts before he opens his mouth.
I ask the Government spokesman who will reply what he said in answer to Lord Fleck's proposal—

Dame Irene Ward: I have a Question down about it.

Mr. Short: —that there should be a S.I.S.T.E.R. in the North-East. I believe that this is an imaginative proposal. The Constantine College of Technology, in Middlesbrough, is a suitable nucleus for such an institution. Will the Government now give their blessing either to this or to a university on Tees-side?
As for the school building programme, I have taken out the current figures for this year. The four biggest local authorities in the North-East, Newcastle, Sunderland, Durham and Northumberland, submitted proposals, all vetted by their own finance committees, for £15½ million worth of projects. They got £3,900,000 worth. Apparently this deprivation of an adequate educational advance, which is absolutely fundamental to the rebuilding of this area, is to continue. The White Paper says so, on page 31.
As for research, the Government say—again as though this is a great new discovery—that there will be co-operation with the two universities. What do they think the local authorities have been doing for donkey's years? Whenever we

wanted expert information or research we went to the universities. There is nothing new in this. I wholeheartedly agree with what is said about research by private firms. The White Paper says that
there must be a continuing increase in the amount of research activity by many of the local firms.
What a pious hope! Apart from the existing investment allowances for research, are there any proposals for stimulating this in the White Paper? Of course not. There is nothing but platitudes. There are no proposals at all.
But I should have thought that the application of science to industry, and not least to our old industries, is absolutely vital not only for the rehabilitation of the North-East and Scotland but also for the progress of the whole of Britain. British industry has always been reluctant to invest in research, but it is the Government's job to make that good. One reason why we have been falling behind in production in the last few years is that the Government have failed to make good the deficiencies of private industry in relation to research. In some key industries research hardly exists.
Yesterday, in the by-election campaign in which he is currently engaged, Mr. Quint in Hogg, in his efforts to denigrate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, said, among a number of very disreputable and unmannerly pieces of muck-throwing, that my right hon. Friend was going to destroy the country's research organisation. Let me make it quite clear what next year's Labour Government will do about research organisations.

Mr. Speir: I expect that they will issue a "Brown" Paper.

Mr. Short: They will make Government research a major element in their economic plans for the modernisation of Britain. They will enlarge and reconstruct the National Research and Development Corporation. They will not destroy it; they will enlarge and reconstruct it. They will allow it to engage in production on its own or in joint enterprise with private companies in the production of newly developed scientific inventions. These will be the


real growing points of the economy, under the Labour Government, and will be located in the older industrial areas—the comprehensive development areas yesterday described by my right hon. Friend.
The problem of regional imbalance is a baffling one in many respects. Nevertheless, it presents a dazzling opportunity. In our view the first two instalments in the Government's attempts to deal with it are utterly inadequate. There is no immediate relief of unemployment. The Government cannot by any stretch of the imagination call this planning. In the absence of any coherent national planning they cannot possibly succeed. They propose no financial assistance beyond the normal grant.
The White Papers reveal woolly, indeed chaotic, thinking on the part of their authors. Hon. Members on this side of the House, and the whole country, cannot regard these proposals as anything more than a desperate attempt by a defeated and demoralised Government to retrieve their fortunes in two thickly-populated areas. The tragedy is that these Reports deal with fine men and women with a century of unequalled skill in their hands—men and women who are unemployed, unwanted and unused. It is Obvious from these two documents that they will remain so until we have a Government with the ability, courage and vision to face their problems.

4.45 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): We have certainly had a most spirited speech from the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. As the hon. Member was speaking I could not help reflecting how much the House—at any rate, this side—has lost from the abandonment of the old custom of verbal celibacy of the Whip's Office.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: But we have gained by it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not so sure. The hon. Member brought out the implications of his party's views with a frankness and an openness that is not always adopted by the more sophisticated of his colleagues. For example, the idea of an industrial planning board, with its direction of industry, is a very interesting

and very clearly expressed declaration of intention.
The hon. Member went further. He referred to the intention to buy out industries in the South and transplant them compulsorily as State-owned enterprises in the areas of unemployment. I wonder how the hon. Member reconciled that proposal with what his own Leader said at Question Time this afternoon, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War made a statement about the Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich. From that Dispatch Box the right hon. Gentleman, not two hours ago, told my right hon. Friend that he should consider using that Ordnance factory, in the crowded South-East, for civilian production.
I do not know how the right hon. Member would square the actual institution of new civilian manufacturing capacity in the South-East—unless it be that it happens to be State-owned—with a proposal compulsorily to move or disappropriate private industry from the South-East to the North-East or to Scotland. If the hon. Member thinks that I am misrepresenting him I shall gladly give him a chance to intervene, right away, although he would not give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate on two points. I gave way to the Minister, and I did not say anything about compulsory transfer or transplanting.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This becomes more interesting. Does this mean that there will be only voluntary purchase? What happens if the firm concerned does not want to move? What happens if it is not prepared to move voluntarily? What will the hon. Member do? I give him another chance to intervene. He seems a little less eager to take it. The House will draw its own conclusions.
Then the hon. Member referred—and I am not misrepresenting him here—to the establishment of new publicly-owned industries in these areas. What sort of industry? Into which industry does the hon. Gentleman propose in this way to introduce further nationalisation? The country outside would be interested to know, since it is a point which his own Leader has been very successful in ducking. That is why I


rejoice at the action of the Opposition in putting in the Deputy Chief Whip to bat.

Mr. E. Fernybough: The Postmaster-General announced in the House recently a considerable increase in his investment programme over the next five years. Is there any reason why the Post Office should not produce some of the things required for this big investment programme in the North-East, or in Scotland?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Post Office could go into the question of producing equipment which it does not produce at present. That would raise very serious issues.
We had from the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip a very interesting declaration of policy as to central direction of industry, the purchase of existing firms and their forceable transfer, and the setting up of new nuclei of nationalisation in particular areas. I would only say to him that this technique of centralised State direction is not new. It is exactly what the party opposite tried, with lamentable lack of success, between 1945 and 1951, when the one thing that all objective national opinion was satisfied about was that the centralised direction of the Ministry would not work, because the Government machine, however well staffed, in such a complex society as ours, could not possibly manage and control industrial tactics in this way.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), however, that we cannot isolate in these discussions the problems of areas of unemployment from the central issues of economic policy, on which for that reason I want to say a few words. But before leaving the hon. Member, I would remind him of what he would have been reminded of by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) had he had the courtesy to give way. It is that he was on a wholly false point in the local government borrowing point which he was seeking to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham could have told him with great authority, because he introduced and carried through the Local Govern-

ment (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, that under Section 8 of that Act local authorities may defer or capitalise their interest payments up to five years. This, which is based on fact whereas the hon. Member was basing himself on supposition, makes clear that he was on a bad point.
On the question of general policy, I agree with the hon. Member that it is impossible to separate from the general economy the policies applying to regional development, whether in respect of free depreciation or the Local Employment Act or even the negative pressures of the industrial development certificates. All work more efficiently when the economy is expanding, and, as I think the hon. Member himself said, when industry is on the move.
One of the major contributions that we can make and are making, therefore, to the areas of unemployment is the expansion of the economy or, in the words of my right hon. Friend, expansion without inflation, an expansion which can be sustained. We can say that the general expansion of the economy which is now taking place as a result of my right hon. Friend's measures is itself playing a major part in making policy in these areas more effective. It is a fact that the measures in the Chancellor's Budget are taking effect.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is here and is to intervene towards the end of the debate. I am glad to see the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer emerging from the penumbra of the shadow Minister of Production. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will remember that when we had the Budget debates he thought that my right hon. Friend had not gone far enough. He said, on 4th April, that
… the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been too cautious. I believe that there is a need for greater incentives if we are to get industry running full out."—[Official Report, 4th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 642.]
The hon. Member has repented of that in a big way. He now thinks that we are doing too much.
The hon. Member said, in his famous speech in Wembley, on 9th November:
This will be the biggest spending spree ever by any Government in peace time. If they carry out this programme without the capacity to pay we shall be in for a period of galloping inflation.


In the debate on the Address the hon. Member referred rather gaily to my right hon. Friend as "Reckless Reggie". The hon. Member fails to appreciate that the present expansion derives precisely from the Budget measures which the hon. Member suggested at the time were too small. If he thinks now that we are doing too much he was plainly wrong to criticise us then for doing too little. He has not understood that the same consistent policy of my right hon. Friend embodied in the Budget is producing the industrial expansion which is now taking place. The only change is in the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. The "Sunny Jim" of April has become "Jeremiah James" of December.

Mr. James Callaghan: With what does the right hon. Gentleman disagree? Does he disagree that this will be the biggest amount of spending, taking into account all the programmes up to 1958, in which any Government has ever indulged? Or does he disagree with the statement that if the Government carry out the programme and do not have the capacity to pay in real resources we shall be in for galloping inflation? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees, what is he criticising?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What I criticise is the hon. Member's statement now that we are doing too much when, as recently as last April, he was describing the very measures that have brought this about as too little.

Mr. Callaghan: May I explain the matter in one sentence to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who, I think, understands it perfectly? It is one thing to say last April that we were not doing enough to stimulate the economy and quite a different thing to say that the vast programmes being undertaken over the next five years will overstrain resources unless production rises at 4 per cent, per annum. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman applies his mind to it he will see the proposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman applies his mind to it he will see that the very measures of the Budget, which are now bringing about an expansion of that order, were designed for a programme of this kind to be sustained. If outside the House the hon. Member suggests that the Government

are going into a spending spree, the plain suggestion being that we are spending too much, it is up to him to say in what direction, and, in particular, which of our programmes, a Labour Government would cut.
I come back now to the regions. It also helps to run the economy at the higher level we aim at if the regions themselves are having their resources fully employed and if, in particular, development can be steered to areas where resources and labour are available and steered away from areas where they are short. It is possible to sustain the economy at a higher overall level because we avoid the excessive competition for labour, resources and premises which otherwise will develop in areas where they are already fully employed.
Therefore, it is the essence of regional policy that not only does an expanding economy help the proper development of the regions, but the proper development of the regions makes it possible to obtain overall a higher level of activity in the economy as a whole. That is essential to a proper understanding of the issue, just as is the fact that if development can take place in areas when; there is room for it, rather than expanding in areas already fully extended, there is less strain on general public investment in public utilities, since full use is made of those utilities where the) are, rather than having to provide them on a higher scale in areas where they are already fully extended.
No one, I think, would seek to criticise the Government for any excessive devotion to orthodoxy in the methods used to help areas of unemployment. I disagree entirely with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central in his criticism of the Local Employment Act. It is completely fallacious to attribute to that Act changes in industrial structure which result from change in demand, changing needs in the economy, and changes in techniques. No question of preventing such changes could possibly be dealt with under the Act, nor would it be for the general health of the economy to do so.
The point of the Local Employment Act comes, on the positive side—the inducement to new industries to go to areas where the older industries, for one


reason or another, are declining. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is really not playing quite fair by the Act in attributing failure to it because it does not prevent the technical and technological changes in the older industries, which will take place, and which, for the health of the general economy, are in some measure quite inescapable.
The Government are using a variety of instruments to help them and to help with the real solution of the problem, which is to get new industries into these areas. Differential taxation has always been viewed rather unhappily in this country. It has plain dangers from the point of view of equity between individuals and in the practicability of enforcement, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East knows very well.
On the other hand, my right hon. Friend has found a method of taxation, that of free depreciation, which can be applied specifically to the areas of unemployment. It is a very powerful instrument. When the House recalls that not only can an industrialist under this write off, if he wishes, in the first year, 100 per cent. of the cost of the equipment, but on top of that, there can be brought in a 30 per cent. investment allowance, that is an extremely powerful fiscal stimulus.
I had the experience a few weeks ago of being in Southern Italy and seeing what the Italian Government were doing with their rather comparable problem of the restoration of the South. In discussions there, particularly with industrialists, I was given very clearly the impression that of all the variety of methods that the Italian Government were using tax concessions were, perhaps, the most effective and persuasive.
But we do not rest on that, although it is a fact that the use of this fiscal incentive is plainly stimulating development in these areas. A very good test is the number of projects for financial assistance under the Local Employment Act. During the year ended 31st March, 1963, 370 projects were put forward for financial assistance in the development areas. During the seven months since the Budget—this is comparing seven months with twelve—more than 700 projects have been put forward. In other words, since the Budget, the

monthly rate of these projects put forward has tripled.
That is partly due, no doubt, to the improved provisions of the Act itself. But I think that the House will come to the conclusion that this really spectacular increase clearly reflects the powerful stimulus given by free depreciation. Many applications are being dealt with now, but the fact remains that firm offers have been made for larger amounts in the seven months in both the North-East and in Scotland than in the whole of the preceding 12 months.
Another important instrument is capital investment. It has been the deliberate decision of the Government to give a disproportionate amount of capital investment to the North-East and to Scotland. Here, I thought that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was rather less than fair in his speech yesterday. I should say that the right hon. Gentleman, with his habitual courtesy, has told me that it is not possible for him, owing to an unavoidable engagement, to be present. I fully accept that, and I thought that in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman I should say so. In fairness to myself, I warned him that I should be dealing with his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman was a little selective in his choice of figures. He referred to the fact—column 1008 of the Official Report—yesterday that the total public service investment in Central Scotland would rise by only £10 million in 1964–65 above the current year's provision of £130 million. But the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the fact that the current year provision of £130 million is £30 million up on last year, a 30 per cent. increase.
Then the right hon. Gentleman referred, in, I thought, a rather unfair way, to the "gathering together of already known schemes". If we had not already gone ahead with these, no one would have been more vehement than the right hon. Gentleman in denouncing us for delay. What comes out is that we have, in fact, gone ahead with these.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government prepared all these schemes during the period of the credit squeeze?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Government have always had in mind the


measures necessary to deal with localised unemployment in areas where it would arise. Of course, any Government would have plans to deal with these contingencies.
I am dealing for the moment with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I think that it was a very unfair and wrong impression to give that there was only a £10 million increase and not to refer to the 30 per cent. increase for Central Scotland this year over last year. Indeed, to refer just to "gathering together of already known schemes" is hardly consistent with the Amendment that the right hon. Member moved, charging us with belated measures. At least, we are ahead of him.

Mr. William Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many of these schemes have already been delayed, and could he give me an estimate of the amount of underspending that there has been on the road programme in Scotland?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman detailed figures of underspending on the road programme. I understand that on the trunk roads, as opposed to the classified roads, there has from time to time been some underspending in Scotland for purely practical reasons and difficulties. The hon. Gentleman is seeking, with his habitual ingenuity—I enjoyed his speech very much last night—to divert me from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, who seems to have many friends with admirable diversionary qualities.
The right hon. Gentleman did not stop at Scotland. He also overlooked the fact that, as a result of this increase in Scotland alone, an area with 7.5 per cent. of the population of Great Britain is to get 11 per cent. of the public service investment.
Then the right hon. Gentleman used the same very misleading argument in respect of the North-East. Indeed, it is even more misleading. He referred to the fact that the public service investment in the North-East next year goes up to nearly £90 million, above the present £80 million, but ignored the fact that the current £80 million is an enormous proportionate increase on the figure for last year which was £55 million.
This is an increase of over 40 per cent., a very considerable use of the resources of public service investment to which it would have been fair of the right hon. Gentleman to refer. An area with 5½ per cent. of the population of Great Britain is getting 7 per cent. of the public service investment. Taking the two areas together, 13 per cent. of the population are in areas which are receiving 18 per cent. of the public service investment.
The object is not merely to give immediate employment, though it does have that beneficial effect. That effect is temporary, however. What we are after is economic development which, in due course, will be self-sustaining. The real object must be long term. It must be to make the are as attractive to industrialists so that they will want to bring their plant there, and not have to be directed there; attractive to industrialists in the sense that there are good communications to connect them with their markets; attractive to industrialistsin districts where the specialist staff that they will need to bring with them will be happy to work and live. That is why there is to be a considerable road programme—I shall come to subject of roads in due course—in both the North-East and in Scotland.
There is a whole variety of steps to be taken to make this project attractive to individuals. Reference has been made to educational investment. That has been substantially increased, again disproportionately to the child population. There is also the increased grant in respect of clearance of derelict land.
I take up the phrase—and I accept it—which has been used, that one wants to take steps which help the quality of living. Going further than that, it is essential that the cultural life of the regions should be developed and helped. Central to this are the universities, the centres of intellectual vigour in the arts, and centres of research in the industrial context on the scientific and technological sides. Great development is taking place in those directions.
Take first the North-East. Since 1st August there have been two separate universities at Newcastle and Durham. Durham is introducing for the first time a faculty of applied science. There is


a great expansion in building at both these universities. Capital grants from the University Grants Committee to Newcastle for construction and so on total £897,000 this year. Next year the figure will be £1,845,000, the year after £1,200,000, making over £3 million on construction in two years. Durham is getting £1 million in the current year. The numbers at both universities are being expanded by about 50 per cent. in the next 10 years.
I was asked about the introduction in the area of one of these new institutions called S.I.S.T.E.R.s. Any decision about that will obviously have to await consideration by the U.G.C., but I take note of the points. Similarly, in Scotland, a tremendous amount of work is going on in the new University of Strathclyde—

Mr. Ross: Newly-named.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I mean the newly-promoted University of Strathclyde. It has gained university status. Nearly £2 million worth of work is going on there, particularly in connection with engineering and building. The University of Glasgow will be starting a project worth £358,000.
On education generally, the proportions of spending in the North-East on major educational works are 9.3 per cent. of the total provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, against a school population of 6-9. In Central Scotland educational starts have risen from £11½ in 1960–61 to £16.3 million next year, a very large increase. The actual work done is increasing rapidly, from £9.9 million in 1960–61 to £15½ million in 1964–65.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), during yesterday's debate, made an eloquent plea for Northern Ireland, and I should like to say a word or two in reply to him. The House recognises the problem of Northern Ireland. Though there has been some reduction in unemployment, it is still the highest for any area in the United Kingdom. It has not been referred to earlier in the debate because of the different constitutional position, because of its possession of a Government of its own, but this problem is fully

understood by my right hon. Friends and myself.
A great deal is being done to help. First, the free depreciation which I have already mentioned applies throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. Rates of grant for assistance to industry have always been at a higher level in Northern Ireland than on this side of St. George's Channel. In the light of the standardisation of grants announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, the rates in Northern Ireland have risen further to maintain the differential. There is very high expenditure in the current year—£5.4 million under the industrial development Acts, grants and loans to industry £3.5 million, and £5.1 million in respect of capital costs for buildings and new machinery.
The existing subsidy on coal, designed to help Northern Ireland deal with production costs and the distance of supplies of power, has been extended to oil, and the two subsidies now cost in excess of £1 million. There has been a £10 million payment to Short Bros, and Harland to enable that firm to complete the order for Belfast aircraft. There are also special arrangements in connection with sub-contracting work on the V.C.10, and I would also remind the House of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's announcement on 1st August of assistance in connection with the dry dock. Most of this assistance under existing constitutional arrangements is provided from the Northern Ireland Government, but successive reductions in the Imperial contribution have placed that Government in an increasingly strong position to undertake these expenditures.
On top of this, I do not know whether the House fully realises that agricultural subsidies in excess of £30 million last year were paid to Northern Ireland straight from the Vote of the Minister of Agriculture, and the combined effect of the social services agreement and arrangements in respect of National Insurance funds is to add a further payment from this country to Northern Ireland of £15 million a year. I have myself sufficient Ulster blood to know that no provisions will fully satisfy my hon. Friend, but I would say with all sincerity that we fully realise the seriousness and the long-standing nature of the


problem of Northern Ireland, a problem which the Northern Irish people are tackling with so much resource and courage. The provisions to which I have referred today are a solid acknowledgment of the position.

Mr. Stanley McMaster: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Can he give an assurance that public investment in Northern Ireland during the next two or three years will increase in the same way as it is planned to increase in the North-East and Scotland?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot answer that question because it involves answering for the Government of Northern Ireland, which is an impertinence of which I would not wish to be guilty. But the financial position of the Government of Northern Ireland, on which they must make their own decisions, is receiving a massive measure of help from the Government at Westminster.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Can I take it that my right hon. Friend is saying that any request for an increased level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland to keep it on a par with the growth areas will receive at least as much sympathetic consideration from the Treasury?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A Treasury Minister cannot answer a question, however persuasively phrased, beginning with the words "any request". But I can certainly give the assurance that sympathy will be forthcoming.
We heard last night what I thought, and what I am sure the House thought, a very moving speech by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley), who, I think, always commands, deservedly, the attention of the House. He referred very rightly to the importance of road communications in the North-East, but I think that he underrated what has been done, what is being done and what will be done in this respect. The hon. Gentleman referred, rather amusingly, to there only being the Roman road, but I would point out that, in addition, there arethe Marples highways.
In paragraphs 57 and 58 the White Paper itself goes into this in very considerable detail. It brings out, first, the large expenditure on improving the com-

munications of the North-East with the rest of the country. That is vitally important to the point on which I have already touched, that of inducing industrialists, particularly those who manufacture perishable goods, to instal themselves in the area.
The White Paper then deals with internal roads—there is a considerable list in a later paragraph—and it brings out the magnitude of what is being done. The present programme in the North-East is of the value of £58 million—already a priority—and this is to be followed by a further programme of about £50 million, about £30 million of which, we estimate, will be spent during the currency of the original £58 million programme. This involves a concentration of effort in the provision of roads and is disproportionate to what it is possible to do in most other parts of the country. That is. of course, essential to a policy, which we have been discussing in the House for one and a half days, of deliberately concentrating efforts on the areas in which it is designed to secure improvement even if it means that we can do less in others

Mr. James Boyden: What my hon. Friends and I complain about is the way West Durham is left out of the picture. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would read the last part of paragraph 62, which says:
It may in addition be possible to provide for some improvement in roads giving local access to the growth zone from the west and south.
We are the people who are expected to travel from the West and the South to the growth zone, and who are having practically all our railways closed

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The question of the closure of railways involves the whole procedure, and both the consultative committees and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
On road provision, to which I have referred, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to interrupt me. I am concerned here with the general provision of resources. How my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport disposes of these very large resources is a matter for him, and on which he is technically better qualified to answer than I am. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he directs that inquiry to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Chief Secretary has said something very disquieting; the tenor of his speech indicates that the Government's resources are to be concentrated in the North-East and Scotland, and to a degree in Northern Ireland, which means that the needs of North and Mid-Wales are to be neglected. This is a very serious matter. Will he comment on it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This does not mean that the needs of any part of the country will be neglected. The hon. Gentleman must not draw that conclusion. But priority for some part of the country means that other parts get less than they would otherwise get because, otherwise, priority is meaningless. But it does involve that, and it is fair that the House should face and recognise it.
It is very easy to talk about priorities for particular areas, but it is intellectually dishonest to do so unless one is, clear in one's own mind that the rest of the country will get less than it would otherwise get. It does not mean neglect, but less than it would otherwise get. It seems a justifiable course to take and I think that whatever else divides us on this issue there is no basic division between us on that. That it can be successful is borne out by the success story of South Wales, which shows that these measures can be successful.
The object which we now have in the North-East and Scotland is permanent new development, strong, expanding and self-sustaining, and that is exactly what years of effort and heavy investment have done for the industry of South Wales. New industries have been brought in there to take the place of those declining. I do not need to list them, because the hon. Gentleman will know them for himself, but there is the British Motor Corporation, Pressed Steel, British Hydro-Carbon Chemicals and the immense steel plant of Richard Thomas & Baldwins, at Llanwern, the most modern and up to date of its kind in the world, and the oil refineries of the Esso, British Petroleum and Regent companies.
The result is that the four South Wales counties which had an average of unemployment in 1948 of 34,000 came down last year to an average of 23,000.This shows that concentration of effort, both Government and private, of public

service investment, concentrated—and I stress "concentrated", because if they are too widely dispersed they will not be effective—on particular areas can build them up permanently and give them a decent future.
That is the enterprise on which we are engaged. There is the happy example of South Wales to show that it is an enterprise that can and will be successful, and I venture to suggest that it will be successful well within the lifetime of the present Government.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: What is this debate about? It is about the two Government White Papers. What do the White Papers indicate? They indicate that the problem of unemployment remains with us. That is what we are debating this afternoon and what we debated yesterday. Sixty years ago, in this assembly, Keir Hardie raised the claims of the unemployed and demanded work for them. That was 60 years ago, yet we are still debating unemployment. That is a sad commentary on what is frequently described as social and industrial progress in this country.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite a question, a valid question, a fair question and, I may add, an honest question. Do they really believe in the abolition of unemployment? I hope that whoever is to reply to this debate will answer that question. Or do they prefer, as previous Tory and Liberal Governments preferred, a reservoir of unemployed? When we consider the unemployment which is exploited to the advantage of industrial firms in this country, that is a fair question. Let them answer it.
But, of course, if the Government really believe that a serious attempt should be made to solve the problem of unemployment, let them tell us how they propose to do it. If they are unable to do it, then the unemployed have a right to ask, as indeed, they have been asking for many years now, directly and indirectly, through the medium of hon. Members: what is to happen to them?
Are they to live on unemployment benefit, supplemented by National Assistance, and on what they may gain from their friends and relatives? Are they to be regarded as inferior not only from


the point of view of intellect and physique, but from the point of view of nutrition, housing accommodation, clothing and the ordinary simple amenities of good living?
These are fair questions. I have heard them asked in this assembly for the past 40 years. I knew about them before I came to this assembly. There is no answer to them in this White Paper, make no mistake about that. Yet the unemployed demand an answer. If there were no unemployment in the North-East, Scotland, the South-West and certain parts of the South-East and South Wales, and even in the Midlands and the congested industrial areas experiencing all the benefits of an affluent society, as we are told, there would have been no White Papers and no need for them.
I ask the Chief Secretary to be honest about this. He has considerable ability, although I am bound to say that he might have used it to greater advantage in the course of his speech. However, I am assuming, and I think rightly, that he is an honest man, together with his colleagues on the Front Bench. Let them answer this question: do the contents of these White Papers provide even a partial solution of the unemployment problem? Surely the answer must be in the negative.
While the right hon. Gentleman was addressing the House, I ventured to interrupt him. I hope that he will forgive me for that, but I thought that it was a valid interruption. I asked him a question to which he did not vouchsafe a satisfactory reply. When he was speaking about the plans which the Government were preparing over a period of years in serious contemplation about the future, I asked him whether they were being prepared simultaneously with the credit squeeze, which provided for restriction in production. He gave no answer. He said that some of my hon. Friends were indulging in diversionary tactics. I realise that he is a past master at that, because I have known him for a long time.
Obviously, if a Government engage in a restrictionist policy, probably for sound reasons—perhaps to curb the serious effects of inflation—it is quite proper to adopt the method of restriction. But, plainly, it would verge on foolishness—I will not say that it would

be improper—to engage in restriction in production and to curb consuming power and, at the same time, to prepare plans for increasing production, investment allowances, depreciation allowances and the like.
The Chief Secretary should have been more honest in replying to my question. Perhaps we may have an answer to it later. The Government are, to that extent, not wholly to blame, but partly to blame. Whydo I say that they are not wholly to blame? We have been able to deal with the problem of unemployment—indeed, to solve it—in only two prolonged periods in this century. One was between 1914 and 1918 and the other between 1939 and 1945. The Chief Secretary threw cold water on the concept of direction of industry. We had wholesale direction of industry, direction of labour, centralisation and concentration during those periods. The Government were the masters, and I understood the need for such a policy.
In the Second World War, during that prolonged period when there was no unemployment, I advocated in this assembly even more stringent measures to ensure that everybody was geared up to production. That was the right thing to do. When the war was over we went back to the bad old days.
Another period when unemployment was at a very low level was between 1945 and 1950 when the Labour Party was in office. If that is challenged, I point out that the national average of unemployment in that period was below the present national average. Hon. Members opposite may sneer at that Labour Government, but the level of unemployment then was lower than it is now, and I know why. The reason it was lower was not entirely attributable to a Labour Government; of course not. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I am trying to be honest about these matters. I hope that hon. Members opposite will exhibit the same honesty. If they try hard enough they may succeed.
Another reason for the low level of unemployment in those days was the fact that we were starting from scratch again in 1945. We had to build up existing industries and create new ones. As I say, there was very little unemployment. There was a considerable


shortage of labour in the mining industry, as I well know.
We have debated the question of unemployment over and over again—not in assemblies weakened in numbers but in assemblies which have been crowded. I have heard the most passionate speeches made on behalf of the unemployed. Let me say to the Chief Secretary, and to hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the unemployment problem in the North-East or elsewhere will not be solved merely by injecting money into the areas concerned—by priming the pump, as it is said.
Of course, that helps. If money is injected, and if the pump is primed, that increases consuming power. That is the purpose of capital investment. We gather together a vast amount of material—it may be bricks and mortar or it may be essential requirements for the engineering and electronic industries—and, as a result, capital investment raises consumer demand.
I do not object to that. Far be it from me in my constituency to object to the injection of finance or capital investment. Whether we are getting it is another matter. I will come to that when I leave the general issues involved and deal with the somewhat parochial matters.
A great deal can be done about this problem. I do not go so far as to say that we can solve it merely by reviving public enterprises in certain depressed areas, or even by directing industry to go from the South or the Midlands to the North. That might merely result in a redistribution of unemployment. That would be no solution to the general unemployment problem. It would alleviate the problem in the North-East, Scotland or Ulster, but it would be no comfort to those of us in the North to know that we have partially dealt with the unemployment problem in our midst only to create unemployment in some other parts of the country. That is not the solution.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of benefits derived from depreciation allowances, and I presume that he was thinking more particularly of the shipbuilding industry. But we have had depreciation

allowances for the shipbuilding industry for some considerable time. Why, then, have the Government provided £75 million credit to the industry? Because the depreciation allowances were inadequate. It is as simple as that.
I venture upon one or two possible solutions of the problem facing us. I admit that these ills cannot be cured over night. First, there must be a vast and drastic expansion of international trade. If we could increase our exports by 10 per cent, we would nearly solve the problem. If those countries regarded as under-developed, in the industrial sense, could get better prices for their commodities they could buy more goods from us, which would help us considerably. Credits, perhaps on an international scale, are required in order to inject more finance or the ingredients required into those countries so that later they could buy more goods from us.
What is the cause of it all? Unlike me, the right hon. Gentleman is an educated person and I ask him whether he has ever sat down and thought about the cause of unemployment. I believe that he was president of the Oxford Union at one time. I thought that his speech today was reminiscent of those days. He was a little nasty when he began, but I do not want to be because that is not a good thing when we are engaged in serious controversy.
I wonder whether he has ever considered what causes unemployment. May I offer him an idea? Is there no disparity between production and distribution? Has it ever occurred to him? Surely it must have done at some time. Not only here but throughout the world there is this disparity between production and consuming power. Raise the consuming power of people in the under-developed countries—in China and Russia as well—and it would not only benefit us but also people in other countries. It would even benefit Ulster, although I am bound to say that, judging by the sycophancy of Ulster Members in this House—I do not say that in a derogatory sense: I am speaking in the political sense—they do not really deserve it.
But I am the last person to deprive the people of Ulster of what they need, because I was well acquainted with Ulster, as I was with Southern Ireland.


I want to leave what might be described as the general problem. This is not an academic exercise and I have merely thrown out some suggestions. I do not, however, believe that this Government can solve the problem.
I know what I am talking about when I say that a Labour Government will not be. able to solve the problem either unless they undertake drastic changes in our industrial structure and in the monetary and fiscal systems. If we do not undertake these changes we may alleviate the problem to some extent, but we will not solve it. Now here I must consult my notes because I want to refer to parochial questions.
I represent the well-known and distinguished constituency of Easington in County Durham. I use notes at this point—and I hope that this will not be counted against me some time—because of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman said that the While Paper was welcomed in the North-East.
I was surprised to hear that, because I am well acquainted with the North-East. I go there nearly every week and when I am not there they let me know. But I thought, in order to ascertain the views of some of my constituents I would address a letter on the subject to Easington Rural District Council, which is the second largest district council in the country and is very influential. I asked the Council to inform me of its views on the White Paper. I think that the House had better hear what it says. It is very polite. It says:
The situation is that the North-East Report adds little to what was already known and agreed in the Easington area. Only three parts of the Report really affect the district and as stated they contained nothing new.
The first is the 90 acre industrial site west of A. 19 to be included in the designated area. My Council knew of this some months ago and agreed in principle to this extension of the designated area for industry.
Yet the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a song and dance about this the other day. Like Columbus, he made an original discovery. It was well known to the Council a longtime ago, however. The letter goes on:
The second is the speeding up of the improvements to A.19 which all interested parties,

including ourselves, have been trying to 'push' for a considerable period of time. The Council only hope that the- promise to expedite A.19 will be carried out and the actual works implemented as soon as possible.
How many questions have we asked about that? How many times have I gone to the Minister of Transport about it? I almost pleaded with him on my hands and knees—a most unusual posture for me—in order to persuade him to do something about it. Now he is going to do something.
Yesterday the Secretary of State said, in the kind of sectionalised, departmentalised fashion which occasionally happens when Ministers make their speeches, that he will provide the money but that the Minister of Transport has to deal with the technical aspects. The other day I asked the Minister of Transport
… when the proposed scheme for the reconstruction of the A.19 road between Sheraton Road End and Cold Hesledon will begin; and when it will be completed.
A fair enough question. I asked it because I had seen the White Paper. The Minister's reply was:
 Acquisition of land for the Sheraton and Shotton diversion schemes has proved to be more complicated than expected and I am having to use compulsory purchase powers … I am still hopeful that we will have completed the processes required in time for a start of works in the current financial year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 74.]
I asked about that road three years ago, at about the time of the credit squeeze when perhaps one might have expected the Minister to be pessimistic not only about the A.19 but about roads in general.
The Chief Secretary had better hear the rest of the letter from the Easington Council so that he can convey it to his colleagues, who will then know what the Council thinks of the White Paper.
The third matter was improving the North-East area by carrying out works on derelict sites."—
Most of my hon. Friends are concerned with this—
Reference is made to increased grants but the financial limitation on the carrying out of the works by the local authority still remains, i.e. it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the clearing up of the derelict site will be vitally to attract industry to the area. In the past this


has meant that the site itself must be zoned for industry or alternatively the site must be close to an industrial site.
Restrictions, inhibitions, obstacles, barriers to progress! What is the use of the Government coming along in this optimistic, airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky fashion and telling us what the White Paper will do for us?
It might be assumed that we shall get a lot of work as a result, so I thought I had better ask the general manager of the Peterlee Corporation what he thought. It was suggested that I might go to the site to see what was happening. He informed me that since Peterlee became a new town, 14 years ago, the total number of workpeople engaged has been 1,299–1,060 females and 239 males. What of the future? There's the rub. What is the carrot dangling before our noses?
There are several projects, but how often do we hear that word "project"? There is one scheduled for the end of the year, another by the end of the year. The latter is an important one—a zip fastener firm. I have no objection to zip fasteners—I have often to deal with them myself. Sometimes it is difficult for ladies to fasten up their zips.
How many will this factory employ? It will take 70 people—50 females and 20 males. A paper firm and another making fireplaces will open by the end of the year while, early in 1965, there will be another. But the total number of persons likely to be employed by them is 255 and of this total 109 will be females and 156 males.
I will give one or two facts before I sit down. The House should know them. In 1952 there were 102,000 miners employed in the North-East. On 11th November last there were 72,000—a loss of 30,000. All the jobs in all the projects provided by the Government or suggested by them cannot absorb or make up for the 30,000 jobs lost.
In the North-East, 55,000 persons are registered as unemployed. Well over 1,000 of them are school leavers. That is the position, but there is something more. We are told that the Government want to expedite the building of houses and schools, yet over 8,000 con-

struction and building workers are registered at the employment exchanges. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this? These are not my figures. I was busy last week asking a lot of Written Questions and I got the answers. These are the facts.
Finally, I want to ask about the position of the unemployed now. I have ventured to discuss this with some of my colleagues and I think that they agree with me, although there might be some difficulties. Let us assume that the Government's proposals are adequate, even if belated. Let us assume they will help, as I hope they do for the sake of our people in these areas. But what about those people now? Christmas is coming. What about the unemployed men, even in Ulster? All the hon. Members for Ulster constituencies should be asking this question. Would it not be fine for them to go back before Christmas, by air as they usually do at Government expense—

Mr. F. Harris: Oh.

Mr. Shinwell: I will make my speech in my own way and the hon. Member will not stop me. I understand this House thoroughly. I have taken a lot from other right hon. and hon. Members and will say what is necessary.
Would it not be a fine thing for Ulster Members to go back and tell the unemployed, who are out of work through no fault of their own—indeed, to be fair, through no fault of the hon. Members for Ulster—that the Government have decided that there should be a supplementary unemployment benefit for them? It would be a very fine thing, even if only temporary, and until all these schemes bear fruit it is not asking too much. I hope that hon. Members for Ulster will support me in this. I should like an answer by the Government to my suggestion. It would be a fine thing to be able to say to our people that they were not to be left merely to the dole in so far as—

Mr. Percy Collide: The Government have already turned down that suggestion.

Mr. Shinwell: —there are to be provided with something during the period while the Government schemes are coming to fruition. It would be a fine thing


indeed. If the Government are not prepared to do that, what is the use of the White Papers? It is pie in the sky. Somebody said, "Jam tomorrow", and I repeat it. It is not good enough. Because we cannot solve the unemployment problem now, there is no reason why we should not help to alleviate the conditions of those who are unemployed. I ask the Government to consider that suggestion. It is no use indulging in these optimistic and cheery speeches. We want much more than that. I am representing—as I am sure are my hon. Friends—the views of those who are, unfortunately, unemployed at this time.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: As the new boy in the ranks of the Ulster Unionist Members I noted with more than passing interest the somewhat poetic description used by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to describe my^ colleagues and myself. I also noted that at one stage in his speech the right hon. Gentleman used the words, "I will deliver my own speech". I will do just that myself.
In the earlier days of this Parliament I used frequently to sit in the Gallery of this House and listen with interest to the deliberations taking place below me. I little thought then that before the life of this Parliament had run its course I should be privileged to sit in this Chamber and have the opportunity of speaking to the House.
As I stand here this afternoon I cannot help wondering how many future Members of this House are at present seated upstairs in the Gallery. It is perhaps understandable, and indeed appropriate, for one who is addressing the House for the first time, that I should rise with a certain feeling of trepidation—a trepidation which is in no way minimised by the knowledge that every word uttered is being irrevocably recorded.
This experience is indeed somewhat awesome for a "figure boy"—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) described the members of my profession of accountancy in his excellent "second maiden speech" of a fortnight ago. This experience is, to say the least of it, a little nerve-racking. It is therefore with gratitude that I take shelter and comfort

from the very pleasant traditional courtesy which is accorded to those who address the House for the first time. It is most comforting to know that in the somewhat hazardous employment in which I have recently become engaged, I am protected in some measure—at any rate in the earlier apprenticeship stage—against some of the accidents which may befall me on future occasions.
I have been befriended and helped by a great many people in the House during the past three weeks. I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my most sincere appreciation to each and everyone of those hon. Members. I understand that there are two essential rules governing a maiden speech—brevity and lack of controversial content. I can assure hon. Members that if in the course of my remarks I contravene either of these regulations I shall not do so intentionally—despite the somewhat provocative observations from the other side of the House.
I have the honour to succeed a right hon. Member of outstanding kindness, charm and integrity, a Member who was held in the very highest esteem, indeed beloved, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I refer, of course, to the late Sir David Campbell. It is a remarkable coincidence—and purely accidental, I assure hon. Members—that I should be making my maiden speech almost exactly 11 years to the day since the occasion upon which he made his.
The constituency of Belfast, South which I am privileged to represent and in which I have lived almost all my life, is predominantly residential in character rather than industrial. My constituents are however as vitally concerned with and as much affected by the prosperity of the great factories of Belfast—the shipyard, the aircraft factory, and the many engineering and textile firms—as are the electors of those constituencies in which these factories are situated. The House has been kept very well informed of the problems of Northern Ireland by my Ulster colleagues. The underdevelopment of any region of the United Kingdom is detrimental to the national economy—this applies to the North-East of England, to Central Scotland and even more to Northern Ireland, where the current level of unemployment is substantially higher than in any other region of the United Kingdom.
Although this situation inevitably presents special problems it also presents a special challenge and an opportunity. I reject categorically the idea that Ulster is a depressed area. The industrial potential of Ulster is very considerable. In recent years great strides have been made in the field of industrial diversification, modernisation and expansion. But some measure of Government assistance is undoubtedly needed if the present level of unemployment is to be drastically reduced. I could not add anything to the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he said that he had enough Ulster blood in him to know that any assistance given could never completely satisfy the demands of my countrymen. Therefore, my remarks will come as no surprise. But it was with particular interest that I read in paragraph 34 of the White Paper on development in the north-east of England:
… the Government will continue to operate a strict policy of steering as much new industrial development as practicable away from areas where the need for new employment opportunities is less pressing.
I hope that this statement of intention will apply even more to Ulster than to the north-east of England.
Although the people of Ulster are very appreciative of the generous assistance which has been given over the years by the Treasury, there is, nevertheless, a feeling in some quarters that the Government could have done more to assist in persuading expanding industries to come to Ulster than has perhaps been the case, despite the persistent and painstaking endeavours of my colleagues in the House. The essence of our request, basically, is that Ulster should not be placed at an economic disadvantage because of its geographical position. Ulster has many economic handicaps to face and to overcome, problems which do not confront industrialists on the British mainland.
The Irish Sea is not only a psychological barrier; much worse, it is an expensive barrier. The effect of this barrier is substantially offset, I think, but not completely eliminated, by the unrivalled recreational facilities which Ulster can offer. The beauty of the countryside, the very wide range of sporting facilities cannot be surpassed.
I submit, anywhere in the United Kingdom. Although there are more people in insured employment in Ulster today than at any time in its history, the great strides which have been made in providing additional employment through the attraction of new industries have, unfortunately, coincided with the rundown of employment in traditional industries.
The economy of Ulster—and here a close parallel may be drawn with Central Scotland—has been dominated for many years by a small group of major industries. For a variety of reasons the employment provided by these industries has been, and still is, contracting as the process of modernisation continues and as industries adapt themselves to changing conditions. Although the solution to the problem of unemployment in Ulster lies largely in the attraction of new industries, this must be coupled with the expansion of existing industries. There is little to be gained by attracting, or directing, new firms to Northern Ireland if at the same time established industries are not assisted.
I should like to conclude by returning to my main theme, that the Government, I hope, will undertake to do more to assist in guiding expanding industry away from areas of high employment, density to areas of under-employment, such as Northern Ireland. The Government have given repeated undertakings that they will carry through further exceptional measures to assist in surmounting the complex problem of unemployment in Ulster. I would most respectfully ask the Government to proceed further and faster with the implementation of this undertaking. This is in no way to say that we are unappreciative of the considerable benefits which the Government have given to Northern Ireland and which were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon. But I await—as I am sure do all hon. Members representing constituencies in Ulster—with the keenest interest to hear of the next step in the plans for our industrial development. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their courtesy in listening to me.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will join with me when I say that we


have just heard an exceptionally brilliant new recruit to our class-room. I have seldom listened to a maiden speech which has been delivered with more lucidity and ability than that of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). May I say straight away that I do not hope that the hon. Gentleman will take part frequently in our debates. It is wearying for hon. Members to have to sit day after day trying to get an opportunity to speak, so that the fewer hon. Members opposite who attempt to do so the better will be the opportunities for hon. Members on this side of the House.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South made a constituency speech and it would be unreasonable for me to criticise it because it was his maiden speech, but I think the political reputation of Northern Ireland may have something to do with the unemployment problem which exists there. In other words, had the electors shown more political wisdom, their problems would have been solved more quickly.
This debate revolves around what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) was talking about. It is supposed to be a debate about planning. In fact, it is a debate about men and women, and how we, the elected representatives of the nation, can help the 50,000 in the North-East and the 90,000 in Scotland who are unemployed to get employment, or, at least, to live a better kind of life than the life they are able to live at the present time. The tragedy of the problem which we are discussing is the tragedy of poverty.
I have known many men who have never had to work in their lives; who have never intended to work. But their lives have in no way been circumscribed because they did not work. In this country we have always had two kinds of unemployed people. There are the unemployed who have never had to work because they have inherited wealth and the unemployed about whom I am speaking, and to whom reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington. The "crime" of unemployment today is merely the "crime" of poverty. It would not matter a great deal if men did not have to go down the pits. It would not matter if they did not have to answer the seven o'clock buzzer and go to the factories, or if they

did not have to do any of the arduous jobs which they do now in order to earn their living, It would not matter if they had the incomes of some of the people to whom I might refer. But it is the poverty which accompanies unemployment which is the crying shame and disgrace to the nation. One of the tragedies is that these plans fail miserably to face the situation as it is.
Three days before he was assassinated, President Kennedy addressed the American Federation of Labour. He foresaw something of what had to be done in America: 46,000 new jobs a day would be required to meet the redundancies which would arise as a result of automation. What do these plans have to do with what is likely to happen in this country in the next five years? Have we even begun to get down to the problems which we shall face?
Almost 500,000 men and women are signing on at the employment exchanges today, men and women who want work but who are denied the right to work. Because they are denied the right to work they are suffering all kinds of hardships. Their lives are frustrated. They are miserable, and they are becoming bitter. They are being attacked by a social disease. If they were being attacked by Communism, there would be no limit to the money which the nation would find in order to protect them from that evil. But unemployment destroys the lives of decent men and women just as a foreign foe would. People are being made nervous wrecks, losing bodily health and strength, merely because they are unemployed, and because their unemployment is accompanied by the poverty to which I have referred. If ours is an affluent society, if we have "never had it so good", we ought to be able to give these people a much fairer deal than they are having now.
The unemployed in my constituency have already demonstrated. I had deputations down here last week. They are decent men and women, but they begin to lose faith in the processes and institutions of democracy when they find that all they can do is talk and there is no answer to their problems. What right have we, those of us who have decent homes and those of us who are in work, to say to the unemployed man or woman, "You must act in a socially responsible way"?
Some of us can remember the 'twenties and 'thirties. Some of the finest men and women in the land were taken to prison at that time. They were as good citizens as ever there have been, but their experiences drove them to become antisocial. Th House must realise that our unemployed will not sit silently by, week after week and month after month, if they do not feel that something really drastic is being attempted on their behalf.
I believe that the present system is on trial. Any social system which imposes a burden such as is being imposed on countless thousands in this country today, any social system which tells boys and girls on leaving school that there is no place for them and that they are not wanted in society, any system which imposes burdens and crosses upon men, women and young people like that, is a system which is failing. The right to vote without the right to work makes a mockery of democracy.
We must see to it that industry serves men rather than men serving industry. Our problem today is a problem of distribution. I am always amazed that we never really understand this. When there is a war on, we give things away. We give away the bombs, the bullets and the torpedoes. True, the people who receive them would be glad to be without them, but, nevertheless, we spend millions of pounds producing things in order to give them away.
Some day we shall have to accept that if men and women are not wanted to tend the machines, if men and women are surplus to the requirements of industry, the country will not thereby be entitled to deny them the fruits of the machines. Ours is a relatively rich country. Today we can produce more than has ever been produced in living memory. There is almost no limit to our productive capacity. It is the consuming capacity which is limited, and here lies the problem to which we must find a solution. How are we to produce all those things which men and women need in order to live a good and full life, and how are we to get them to the people who, under the present system, are denied the opportunity to make in industry their contribution to the creation of the necessary wealth?
I turn now to the very limited reference in the White Paper to the major industry of shipbuilding in the North-East. It is true that we have done better than any other shipbuilding area under the Government's credit scheme. I understand that about 60 per cent, of all orders under the Government's credit scheme are coming to the North-East. Something like 800,000 tons of shipping in total is involved in the credit scheme, perhaps more. But it is only equal to about eight months* work for all the shipyards in the country. What happens then? We have eight months' work guaranteed under the Government's credit scheme. In 12 months, unless new orders are given and new foreign orders are secured, we shall be where we were in shipbuilding 12 months ago. We shall not know where our next job is coming from or whether the next ship will be built.
There is an answer. There is an answer to the problem of the North-East and of Scotland. The Government are the biggest single customer of British industry. There are no two, three, four, five or six buyers who spend on orders what the Government spend. Within the past ten days, the Post Office has announced that it is to increase by millions of pounds its capital investment programme over the next few years. Millions more telephones, millions more miles of cable, and all the other things will be involved.
Why could not some of this extra production be taken to Scotland or to the North-East? This is in the power of the Government. They will place the orders. They will have the power to say "Yea" or "Nay. "If we cannot get Callenders Cables, G.E.C. or anyone else who will be getting the bulk of the orders to create the expansion in areas where employment is most needed, what would be wrong with the Government setting up their own establishments and deciding to produce the very things which they will use in the public service? It would be easy.
If areas such as Scotland and the North-East are to have any salvation under the existing social order, transport will remain of vital importance. I make no bones about what I would do. I would put on the Exchequer the responsibility for making freight traffic on the railways as cheap for the man in


the North-East to send his goods to London as it is for the man in Luton to send his to London.
In other words, I would put all industry on the same footing for freight charges. I would make it possible for industries in the North and in Scotland, or wherever employment is required, not to have to carry the heavy burden of transport costs which now stands in the way of new industrial activity in those areas.
Considering the problems which face us, I amazed that the Government did not, before making their final analysis, look across the Atlantic. There were old, decaying areas there. There was unemployment, poverty and all the misery which we have in some of our industrial centres now. What happened? Roosevelt started the Tennessee Valley Authority. He took life to an area where there was nothing but death. He gave hope where there was nothing but fear. If the Government will act in the North-East and in Scotland with the imagination which Roosevelt used in the Tennessee Valley experiment, there will be some hope for our people. But I see little sign of it in the White Paper.
I believe, therefore, that the only hope for Scotland, for the North-East and for the unemployed everywhere lies in having a new Government.

6.23 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I join the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) on making his maiden speech so fluently and so eloquently this afternoon. My hon. Friend will come to learn that one of the most likeable things about the House of Commons is that it has a short memory for a bad speech and a long memory for a good one. Effortlessly, my hon. Friend falls into the long memory category, and we shall look forward to the many future occasions when, with his supreme Irish eloquence, he addresses the House.
The theme of the speeches of the hon. Member for Jarrow and the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was unemployment, and the right hon. Gentleman asked us on this side the most foolish question I have ever heard in this House.

He asked whether we believed in unemployment. I can tell the hon. Member for Jarrow that I have been a Member of Parliament for 30 years, passing through all those desperate pre-war years to which he: referred. Sir John Jarvis, the then Member for Guildford, brought the needs of Jarrow to our attention many times, and took some practical steps to cure or ameliorate the state of affairs there. He took a lot of interest in this special, agonising, unique problem existing in the hon. Member's constituency. Nobody could possibly believe in unemployment.
The hardest thing to attain in any society is perfection, and when there are to be great technical changes there will be great displacements of labour. How can we aim at a perfectionist world in which we can altogether guarantee to eliminate unemployment? I am only too happy to have lived under at least two Governments during which over-full employment has been the problem of our economy, and not gross unemployment.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade on bringing to the House yesterday perhaps the most intelligent and vital series of plans ever placed before the House of Commons. I always enjoy listening to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) when he speaks as he did yesterday. With some parts of that speech I sincerely agree, but his complaint was not against my right hon. Friend but againstthe Government for bringing these plans forward 10 years too late. Mr. Speaker—they are 30 years too late.
I came to this House, through the lottery of political candidature, via the Lancashire-Cheshire Border, with its deep concentration of industry and the inheritance of the scars of the Industrial Revolution. These plans are not 10 years out of date—they were required 30 years ago. They were required much further back, as was implied in the famous words used by the great Prime Minister of the First World War when he spoke of "A land fit for heroes to live in". They were required when, in the 'forties of the last century, in the city that I am privileged to represent, Karl Marx was writing the Communist Manifesto.
That is the background, and now, for the first time, real, forward, regional


plans have been placed before the House of Commons—no matter by whom—that will take the first steps to rebuilding our provincial cities and trying to restore life to the wasted earth that exists all too frequently between many of those cities. They are visionary plans. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said this afternoon that the operation of the Local Employment Act will continue to meet the short-term immediate problems, but the plans we are considering, centred upon the White Papers and regional development, aim at long-term objectives that will not be realised in the lifetime of even one Parliament, and may yet take the best years between now and the end of the century to accomplish in full.
The suggestion I liked most in yesterday's discussion was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). He wanted a much more vigorous individual appointed to take command of the regional organisation. In an interjection, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether those appointed would be commanders within their own regions or merely under-secretaries. It is true that they will have certain delegated powers, but if these schemes are to go forward and to succeed, I am perfectly certain that we will need men of calibre, with the talent and the energy to drive them forward.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke of surveys of the Merseyside and of the Manchester conurbation. They will be contained in the next White Paper. I congratulate him on the fact that, within a few days of making his plan known in the debate on the Queen's Speech, I met him in Manchester when he was making his comprehensive tour of the North-West area. It is absolutely vital that these long-term plans based on regions should be founded on a true system of priorities, because the priority of discharge of function is the essence of their success.
What is the biggest headache in the north-western area? It is mining subsidence. Coal is being mined under the City of Manchester at the present time. The mining can be economic only if total extraction is allowed, and that is

most dangerous to Manchester. I believe that it is already doing enormous harm, and represents a threat elsewhere—for instance, under that great and lovely new cathedral at Coventry. In an old city like Manchester, one can compensate for a 5in., 6in. or 7in. drop, but with a great, wonderful new creation like Coventry Cathedral, made of reinforced concrete, a drop of even 2in. cannot be afforded.
In our priorities, we must put first things first. Before we can begin on any physical reconstruction, there must be the planning and building of roads, and the Minister of Transport becomes a very important person. Before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government can make a move with some of his fine plans, he must watch the course of, for instance, the great new A.6 road from Preston, right through the heart of South-East Lancashire, to Birmingham.
There was reference yesterday to powerful local forces that will oppose schemes—one at every turn, it seemed—in the regions. I can give a rather different picture. Two weeks ago I spent a little time at a conference held in Manchester by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, when he met all the authorities of that conurbation in order to persuade them to embark on a transport survey that was to take two years to prepare. The cost was£¼million, which those authorities were to pay. Because the Minister himself went to the trouble of inviting their cooperation at his level in doing something in his interest, I was amazed at the readiness and willingness with which so many of those local authorities agreed to this proposal. What was said yesterday about intransigent local forces that will not yield in any circumstances was grossly over-stated.
One great benefit coming to the northwestern area in the next few years will be the opening of the wonderful electrified line from Euston to Manchester. It will be a most attractive amenity, and will do much to persuade industry to look to the North again. But I find that when that electrification is completed, Euston Station's rebuilding may probably hardly have started. At the other end, Piccadilly Station, in Manchester, is still only half built. I discovered that my


right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has no knowledge of the predictable future of Euston Station. The planning authority is the London County Council. I should have thought that the whole conception of the electrification of this vitally important line would have been to deal with both its tracks and its two terminal points together. These are the ragged edges in the physical planning that I should like to see eliminated.
The part to be played by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in relation to overspill areas and the siting of new towns will be all-important to the development of the north-western area. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for inviting my co-operation in that respect, particularly in regard to the new towns. I remember an occasion, in 1937 when the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence asked me to carry out a personal reconnaissance of the Singapore base, and another, in 1938, of Simons-town, but in recent years my right hon. Friend is the first Minister who has invited my co-operation at civic level in my own area. That measures the gap which exists between private Members and Members of the Executive.
I should like to see a little more cooperation in the unfolding of these regional plans between members of the Executive and private Members of the House who are directly concerned. It raises the place and position of the private Member of Parliament in all these future plans. What part will he play? Where does he fit into the new pattern which may begin to emerge? Is not some reform required here?
There was a most eloquent and cogent letter in The Times of 7th August, written by the right hon. Member for Easington, about strengthening the House of Commons and restoring dignity to this institution. Where do we come in the dividing loyalties, which are bound to occur in each of us, to the regional structure on the one hand and to the Government on the other hand? These are important questions to ask. If we are to ask for so much reform in regional areas, surely some reform is justified in our procedures here.
I remember that during the war the late Mr. L. S. Amery used to lecture

upstairs sometimes on the creation, to meet the needs of post-war years, of an industrial Parliament. Much of the work and many of the subjects which he mentioned in those speeches are being discharged elsewhere but by permanent bodies such as N.E.D.C. and the National Incomes Commission, often bypassing the work which ought rightly to fall to Members of Parliament.
I am sometimes told that what we lack are good, fine industrialists on the back benches who could give us the necessary guidance through our proceedings here in discussing economic matters. I could imagine nothing worse than for us to attempt to restore someone like Sir Alfred Mond to play the part which he played here 40 years ago. I sometimes feel that what we lack is a rôle for the Privy Councillors on the first bench below the Gangway who once held high responsibility.
I have been reflecting on the great debates of pre-war years on unemployment and the social miseries of our times and what was contributed to them by such people. When I come to individual figures of the past I think of the activities here of former Chancellors of the Exchequer, such as the late Sir Robert Home, for he was always keenly critical of the Government, as I was critical of the Government. I do not see any way by which we can proceed and merge ourselves into these plans unless we have a comprehensive investigation into what we mean by the reform of the House of Commons and the restoration to it of the dignity and the place which it ought to hold in the nation's life.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: What I find particularly depressing about these documents is not the fact that they have come so late in the life of the Government, although I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), whose speech I greatly enjoyed, that this was a subject which could well have been tackled thirty or forty years ago.
I was thinking, during his speech and during that of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), of Lloyd George's hope that this country would be a land fit for heroes to live in and of the fact that Lloyd George tried to


tackle these problems by the policy known as "We can conquer unemployment"—a policy which, unhappily, was rejected in this country but which was adopted by Franklin Roosevelt. It was the concept that if men were unemployed one should not keep them standing in queues for unemployment assistance but should put them to work on great projects of national importance, such as building roads, bridges, dams and hydro-electric schemes, thereby giving them the dignity of worthwhile labour while at the same time enriching the country.
I agree that regionalism should have been tackled twenty or thirty years ago. But what I find particularly depressing about this scheme is, first, the limited motives which have prompted its introduction and, secondly, its geographical limitations. On the first, it is clear that it has not been introduced because the Government believe in the decentralizing of power to the regions for its own sake—which, as far as I am concerned, is a justification in itself for a regional plan. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said yesterday, there is a case for regionalism even in an area of full or over-full employment such as the South-East. But this scheme is a last desperate attempt to cure unemployment in areas where there is high unemployment and where all other efforts have failed to cure the problem. That is the first depressing feature of these plans.
Secondly, I find the geographical limitations also depressing, in that the plans are to apply only to Scotland and the North-East. A Conservative hon. Member for one of the Cornish divisions was delighted to learn that the Minister has received a deputation and would carry out a survey in the South-West. To him this was manna from heaven. I should have thought that the problems of the South-West were already well known. I should like—and I make no apology for it—to refer to one of those regions which is not included in the present plan but which suffers from chronic problems of unemployment and depopulation—the South-West.
The first point to make is that the unemployment figures for that area are wholly misleading. The average figure

is 2 per cent, to 3 per cent, in the winter and perhaps 1 per cent, to 2 per cent, in the summer. But what is not generally realised is that in this region, which we have come to regard as wholly forgotten by the Government, we have substantial pockets of high unemployment. I have an area in my division, Ilfracombe, which has been scheduled under the Local Employment Act since 1959 and where the current unemployment figures are 10·2 per cent, of the employed population.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) will, I hope, forgive my mentioning another figure which falls within his division. I hope that he will have an opportunity to amplify this himself. He, too, has an area which is scheduled under the Local Employment Act—Bideford—where the unemployment is 5.9 per cent. In parts of Cornwall it is as high as 12 per cent. I am thinking in particular of the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman).
We are considering an area not only where unemployment is very high but which has suffered and continues to suffer from relentless depopulation. Many hon. Members who represent constituencies in the South-West can point to villages and hamlets which have a smaller population than they had 100 years ago. I believe that the Duchy of Cornwall is the one county which showed in the recent census a net loss of population. There are not the traditional signs of unemployment. There are old disused tin mines, now, perhaps, picturesquely covered in ivy, but one does not find the same slag heaps and disused industries as one finds in some traditional areas. And yet, in a rural area such as North Devon, 1,250 men are out of work. Two-thirds and more of the graduates from technical schools leave the area every year and have to go elsewhere because there is no employment for them.
They leave behind an ageing population. Not merely is that socially bad for the area, but these are the people who are flocking into our already overcrowded towns and cities, adding to employment problems there, to traffic congestion and to housing difficulties. This is not only socially wrong for the areas which they are leaving but it presents real difficulties for the areas into which they are crowding.
I want to make one or two suggestions. There is no doubt that any regional plan must bring with it the closest co-ordination. We must know what is the population which the Government want to see maintained or built up in the next 15 to 20 years, how many houses that population will require, how many schools the population will have to build, and what communications they will need, whether by road or by rail.
I am not particularly impressed by the Government's planning when two areas in. North Devon, one in my constituency and the other in the constituency of the hon. Member for Torrington, are scheduled by the President of the Board of Trade as areas which should be given special assistance under the Local Employment Act while at the same time the Beeching Plan, which has received the enthusiastic support of the Minister of Transport, axes the railway lines which lead to those areas. It does not seem to me to be of very great help for the Ministry to be prepared to pump red blood into that area if another Minister intends to cut the arteries which lead to it.
This is an abnegation of planning. The South-West is suffering from unemployment and depopulation. If we are to survive and to have the red blood pumped into the area, then we must have a crash programme for schools, for roads, and for attracting industry.
In Devon we applied for £900,000 for major school projects and we received £61,000. We applied for £500,000 for minor works and we received £120,000. I can take the Minister to a number of schools where the sole form of lighting is gas or paraffin and where the only sanitation for the children is a bucket, or, if they are up-to-date, an Elsan. How can one manage to modernise a community and to attract people to the areas when people there live in such archaic conditions?
Next, the Government must realise that tourism is a very valuable industry and a very valuable dollar earner. Of the 30 million people who take their holidays in this country, 17 per cent.—about 5 million—go to the South-West. Yet it is generally known that the state of the roads in the South-West is appalling and that a very minor share is

given to the South-West in the general national allocation. There has been a suggestion by a joint committee composed of Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Exeter and Plymouth that there should first of all be a main line road straight through the area and that thereafter we should begin to agree priorities. They are trying to co-operate as an area. I want to stress to the Minister that this is an area which has time and time again been at the bottom of the queue. It is an area which suffers from high unemployment and recurrent depopulation.
I turn now to the effect of the much vaunted Local Employment Act. I have had an extremely bitter experience in recent days, as indeed has the part of the West Country with which I am familiar. We have 1,250 men out of work in North Devon. There the case in mind relates to one large firm called Shapland & Petters. One of the directors is. a distinguished member of the party opposite, who sat for a long time in this House. It is the only firm in the area which is capable of expanding sufficiently rapidly to employ 200–400 more men. Six months ago the firm put up a project to the Board of Trade whereby it could increase the number it employed by 450 men. It could mop up one-third of our total unemployment.
The Board of Trade's Advisory Committee's accountants visited the firm and were extremely helpful. They went through the figures with the company and decided that £185,000 would have to be spent to bring in this modernisation scheme. The details which a firm is expected to go into on these applications are formidable. It is estimated that it cost the directors and the company in time and money over £1,000. The documents, the accountants' reports, the costings, the drawings of factory realignment, the processing, and so forth, entailed an immense amount of work. The suggestion was that a loan of £150,000 should be applied for and that the firm itself should put up £35,000. This was in addition to large sums of money which the firm had previously expended on modernisation schemes.
The firm did not have to go in for this expansion scheme. In the short-term it would have been much better off if it


had not, but it was public-spirited and determined to play its part in curing unemployment in the area. What happened? The firm was then asked whether it would reduce its application to £125,000 and put up an additional £25,000—£60,000 in all. The firm considered it very carefully and said that it felt that it might be able to find the additional £25,000. It therefore agreed to the application being put in for that figure.
Then the Advisory Committee's accountants came back and asked the firm if it would reduce its application to £100,000 and put up £85,000. The firm said that it did not feel that it could raise that capital and that, if the loan was for only £100,000, the scheme would have to founder. The firm pressed for it to be reinstated at £125,000.
So it was put back to £125,000. There was more delay. Finally, the Advisory Committee recommended that the firm could be lent £75,000; it can have a further £25,000 in the future if it is thought necessary; the firm must maintain its overdraft at its existing figure; it must convert all its existing loan stock. Then there were a whole string of the most stringent conditions which it is quite impossible for the firm to implement. Therefore, the firm has been reluctantly compelled to abandon the scheme. Not only that, but because the firm had started the process of mechanisation so as to be ready for the scheme, in order to account for the four months' delay which inevitably takes place between ordering machinery and getting it on to the factory floor, it will now be faced not merely with not providing employment for 450 men but with actually having redundancies amongst its existing labour force.
It is ironic that 450 men receiving unemployment assistance at approximately £6 per week will cost the Government over £140,000 per annum. Therefore, the Government will be paying out £140,000 to keep 450 men on unemployment pay, whereas they were being asked to lend £125,000, repayable by the company at current bank interest charges, in order to provide employment for those men.
What is even more crazy is that whatever advice the Advisory Committee

gives the Minister is bound to accept it. He has no option. Under Section 4 of the Local Employment Act, 1960, the Minister is empowered.
to make loans or grants for the purposes of the undertaking"—
only—
of such amounts and on such terms and conditions as may be recommended by the advisory committee …
The Minister has no option at all. Was the purpose of that Act to provide employment, or was it not? If it was to provide employment clearly the Advisory Committee is not carrying out the spirit of the Act. This is not only wrong but it will be very expensive for the taxpayers. I implore the Minister to ask the Advisory Committee to reconsider this case. But I fear that I very much doubt now whether the firm will reconsider it. It has been kept waiting for six months going backwards and forwards. I very much doubt whether it will go through the whole process again. This is a specific case where 450 men could have been employed in an area of high unemployment and where the Advisory Committee has whittled the amount of the loan down and down and down over six months. So finally the scheme lies in ruins.
I remember when I made my maiden speech saying that there was no earthly point trying to cure unemployment by trying to bring industry to one limited town or another: the region as a whole had to be developed. That was not felt to be popular at the time. Two other West Country Members, of the party opposite, made similar points. Many of us become accustomed to being shouted down when we preach the obvious and to seeing it ultimately, particularly in election years, being adopted. I stress to the Minister that the South-West has desperate problems to keep our young people in the area and to provide them with employment. When an opportunity is afforded for a specific factory to expand and provide employment, the opportunity is dashed to the ground. I believe that this case is a tragedy for the South-West and a disgrace to the Government. I hope that the Government will reconsider it.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I am sure that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) will understand if


I do not deal with West Country problems, but rather revert to the problems of the North-East.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is not in his place, because had he been I would have drawn his attention to an article which appeared in the Evening Standard about ten days ago. It paints a very different picture of conditions in Jarrow today from the rather gloomy picture painted by the hon. Member.
I will not read the whole of the article—which is headed, "It's much different in Jarrow today"—but it says this:
This town, whose name once stood for unemployment, wears a prosperous air these days. Slums are disappearing as modern council estates spread, and the locals can afford to combine tradition with comfort, judging by the £60,000 men's club going up near the town centre …
On the Jarrow-South Shields border an impressive trading estate now occupies what used to be land of the monastery founded by the Venerable Bede. Factories belonging to firms like Morgan Crucible, Patons and Baldwins, Bunzl and Wilson Gas Meters stand close to one of the original chapels.
And across the railway lines, which run through the town, Reyrolle has just moved into a new factory. Together, these firms have done much to restore confidence in the area …
The brewers are quite happy at the way things are going. 'The trading position of the place is much better than a year ago. We're opening 12 pubs a year in the North-East'.
That is a very different story from that told this afternoon by the hon. Member for Jarrow.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) is in his place. I congratulate him on what I think was his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box. I hope that in future he will not give way only to Ministers, but also to back benchers. I am a back bencher. If the hon. Gentleman had given way to me, what he would have learned was that his complaint that the Newcastle City Corporation is unable to raise money and have a moratorium is no longer applicable. It has not been valid since my Local Government Act came into force in July of this year.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central was very keen that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should lay on the Table a document from which he had

quoted. Today, the hon. Member himself quoted from a document which had been prepared on the White Paper proposals by the Town and Country Planning Association. I did not see the hon. Gentleman lay that document on the Table, nor did I hear him read the first sentence of the memorandum prepared by the Association. I am not altogether surprised, because the first sentence says this:
The Association warmly welcomes the main features of the Government's proposals for the North-East.
The hon. Gentleman was really not very encouraging about conditions in the North-East. He did not do a great deal to help industrialists to come and establish themselves in the area. His remarks were about as unhelpful as the comments made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who opened the debate for the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman poured scorn on Gateshead and on the fine new industrial estate at Team Valley. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
However much money is spent … on beautifying Gateshead, it will not be made more attractive to the average managing director than Mayfair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1012.]
I say that that is utter nonsense. It is on a par with the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. The fact is that most people would far rather live in Gateshead and work there than they would in Battersea. How many managing directors in their senses would dream of setting up a factory in Mayfair or, indeed, anywhere nearby under present conditions?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have had a stream of industrialists come to the North-East during the past 10 years. I am glad to say that their number is growing. They have settled down very quickly. They have been extremely happy. They have been delighted both with the labour they have found there and with their surroundings. If the engineers and the top scientists can be very happy at the atomic reactor station at Dounreay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) made clear yesterday, and if they can be happy at the atomic station at Calder Hall, in West Cumberland—

Mr. Boyden: They are not.

Mr. Speir: They most certainly are. I have been there and talked to them on several occasions. They are extremely happy. If that is so, I do not see why engineers and scientists should not be living happily in the North Tyne Valley and working at Gateshead, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North said yesterday.
The fact is that if industrialists come to the North-East, and live in those parts, they and their families will have many advantages over people living in Mayfair. Amongst other things—I can say this, because I am not a native of the area—they will be living amongst charming people. They will be living in an area which has easy access to the Lake District, the Moors and the hills in the Tyne Valley, and they will be able to get to the seashore and fine beaches with the greatest of ease. If they are so crazy about Mayfair as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North seems to think, they can pop into aeroplanes and be back in London in one-and-a-half hours.
I am convinced that as the pressure on land, labour and traffic continues to build up in the South-East and in the London area, more and more industrialists will see the advantages of going North. It is almost a year ago to this day that we last debated the problems and the prospects of employment in the North-East. On that occasion, although the Government announced some very useful measures to stimulate employment there, I did not feel that they were altogether adequate, or that they quite faced the difficulties which confronted the area at the time. So, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and two other of my hon. Friends, at the end of the debate this time last year I deliberately abstained from voting for the Government.
I am glad that I withdrew my support from the Government on that occasion for, within a month—in January of this year—we had the appointment of the Lord President of the Council as the Minister specially charged with the duties of drawing up comprehensive plans for the North-East—and very good plans he has produced. The Government's proposals, as set out in the White Paper, are sensible, comprehensive and, above all, workable. In fact, they are "just

what the doctor ordered." They are just the medicine which the region needs to enable it to transform itself and become a worthy region of Britain in the second half of the twentieth century. I shall have no hesitation in going into the Lobby in support of the Government this evening.
I believe that there is much truth in the saying that "the Almighty helps those who help themselves". The North-East must not sit back and wait for the Government to do anything; nor should it get into the habit of expecting always to have special treatment. I am sure that the position is well understood both by the local authorities and the people in the North-East. They want to stand on their own feet.
Nevertheless, the rest of Britain, and especially the prosperous areas in the Midlands and South-East, ought to remember what the North and Scotland have done for the South in the past. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central that the South certainly would not have its prosperity—it might not even have its liberty—but for the efforts and products of the North. In fact, Great Britain, would never have become great but for the work of the coal miners and other workers in the heavy industries.
Now that some of these industries are on the way out, a legacy of industrial blight is inevitably left behind. It therefore seems only fair and reasonable that after the tremendous service that these great industries have rendered to Britain in the past, the North-East should now receive special assistance from the South and other areas to enable it to adjust itself, to modernise and transform itself, and to make itself what, with a little effort, it could easily become—an area which is really attractive, and one in which new industries will want to establish themselves and people will want to live and work.
The task facing the North-East is in no way impossible. A great deal of modernisation and diversification of industry has already taken place. Modern industries are already there in a big way. Nowhere is. that more so than in my constituency of Hexham. The transformation that has taken place in the Hexham division has been remarkable. In pre-war days, apart from


agriculture, employment was almost entirely founded on mines and quarries. These are now largely worked out. But in recent years we have had a vast influx of modern industries, whose products range from rocket motors to plastics, and from chipboard to car components. They have all become established within the boundaries of my division.
The employment figures speak for themselves. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is in his place, because earlier this evening he was saying what a crime unemployment was. But when he and his colleagues in the Socialist Government left office in 1931 they left behind them, in the small town of Haltwhistle, in my constituency, unemployment at a rate of 70 per cent, of the insured workers. Today, the figure is 1.7 per cent. In Hexham, after two years of the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, there was 31 per cent, unemployment. Today, it is 1.6 per cent. In the neighbouring town of Prudhoe there was unemployment at the rate of 49 per cent.; today, it is 4.1 per cent. I agree that that is too high, but it is a designated area and it is receiving new industries all the time. I am sure that what Hexham has been able to do in the past few years the whole of the North-East is also able to do. It will be fascinating to see the job being done.
I believe that the North-East is already over the worst. I am glad that the White Paper has clearly emphasised that this region is not one in decline, but is a region in transformation. Its problems are ones of adjustment. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North said yesterday, one very encouraging fact, which needs repeating, is that those industrialists who have come to the North-East in recent years are extremely happy in that area. They are now delighted that the Government are to bring about speedy improvements in communications, rebuild the city centres, expand education and trading facilities, and provide more amenities, besides streamlining administration.
The proposals contained in the White Paper will not provide crutches for dying industries, or subsidies for the undeserving, but they will enable the North-East

to invest in success. I firmly believe that the Government's proposals are in the best interests of both the North and the South of England, and I shall have no hesitation in giving my support to the Government this evening.
I am glad to have this opportunity of adding my thanks to those which have been expressed to the Lord President of the Council for the great services that he has rendered to the North-East. We in the North-East—and I, in particular—would have been very glad to see him return to the House of Commons representing a constituency in the North-East. As it is, everyone in the North-East wishes him well and wishes him tremendous success in his by-election in St. Marylebone tomorrow.

7.20 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I wish that I could be as enthusiastic about the White Papers as was the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). He seems to believe that their contents will be almost like a magic wand and that all the ills from which the North-East is suffering will disappear. I have read the White Paper on Central Scotland and I believe that its contents will certainly not cure Scotland of its deep-seated ills.
I remember clearly that during the 1959 election the Tory Party announced that new legislation on the distribution of industry which would be brought forward after the election. This legislation on employment and the location of industry was to work wonders in Scotland. During the whole of that campaign in every Scottish constituency, and particularly in the industrial areas where unemployment was heavy, almost all the propaganda from the Tory candidates and their helpers pinned its faith on the Local Employment Act.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, in the final speech of yesterday's debate, said:
… the greater part of the Scottish economy is in good heart …"—[Official Report, 3rd December. 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1098.]
I wish that I could be as complacent as he is. If I were. I would not feel so deeply for the 92,000 unemployed men and women in Scotland. The Secretary of State says that our economy is in good heart at the very moment


when over 92,000 of our people are our of a job; and that seems to amuse the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who, in his speech today, did a knock-about turn for the first 10 minutes and did not deal at all with the problems of the North-East and Scotland.
Almost 5 per cent. of all men are unemployed. This means that nearly five out of every 100 Scottish breadwinners are out of a job; but the biggest tragedy of all of this unemployment in Scotland is that 5,568 young people under 18 years of age are without a job. A large number of them have never had a job at all. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) that the biggest indictment any worth-while person would make of the Government is the damage they have done to the very souls of thousands of our young people. I see these young people at the weekends. They feel that they have been left on the scrapheap and that no one cares about them. The Local Employment Act has done nothing to redress the adverse balance in Scotland, the northeast of England, and some parts of Wales.
The vast majority of Scottish people are completely cynical about the contents of the White Paper. They have no faith in the promises which the Government are making a few months before an election. I understand that there is to be an effort to get 100.000 new jobs by 1971. Even that figure is an underestimate of the need in Scotland. We have so many declining industries, particularly in the industrial belt of Scotland, that by 1971 we shall need more than 100,000 new jobs.
The White Paper is supposed to present proposals which will bring about an improvement in the infrastructure, a word of which the Government seem very fond. The Government are hoping to improve housing, education, transport and general amenities. There are certainly areas in Scotland that need a great improvement in amenities. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) spoke earlier today about the ghost villages which were once mining villages. There was some jeering from the other side of the House when he said this.
I wish that the Prime Minister were in his place, because he could tell his backbenchers that on his estates in Lanarkshire there are villages which have been left derelict because of the closure of pits. One of the closed pits is in Douglas. We are desperately concerned about these places. If the Government can do anything to improve their amenities they will have the fullest backing from this side of the House.
My first comment on the improvement of the infrastructure is that it is coming 12 years too late. The Government have failed to realise the importance of education, housing, transport, and the improvement of amenities generally in trying to attract industry. I am surprised to find the Government, through the White Paper and Ministerial speeches, telling the people of Scotland and the north-east of England that they intend to spend greatly increased sums on education, because all the education authorities in Scotland have received information in the last fortnight that the estimates which they have put forward of the amount of school building they could comfortably manage had to be drastically slashed, in some instances by as much as 75 per cent. Ministers, therefore, will not be at all surprised that I am cynical about the White Paper, which says how much more will be spent on education.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke about improvements in university education in Scotland. He mentioned the new University of Strathclyde. This was the Royal College of Science and Technology, which has been promoted to university status, something which we on this side of the House have been urging for a long time. But even the £2 million which that university is to receive for development will not meet the need for extra places for university students in Scotland, and the sum of £330,000 for Glasgow University, is a mere bagatelle. I ask Ministers whether they have read the Robbins Report and realise what a shortage of places there will be even in 1971 unless investment in university education is radically increased. The Robbins Report and the present White Paper and Government statements do not go very well together.
My third comment is on transport. Scotland will be badly hit if the Beeching


proposals are carried out. The Minister of Transport answered a number of Questions today from some of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. He did not seem to take them very seriously. The Government tells us that in these areas that are designated as growth areas transport is of the utmost importance. A great part of Lanarkshire is designated as a growth area. The new town of Livingstone, in West Lothian, is also designated as a growth area. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland, or any of the Ministers responsible for this White Paper, have realised what the Minister of Transport is threatening to do to the railways that run through this growth area.
An announcement was made only about 10 days ago about the line going from Bellshill to Edinburgh, through the growth area of Lanarkshire and through Addiewell station, which serves Livingstone new town. Notices have been pinned up on the stations on this line that it is due to close in March next year. I say to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade, who has just come into the Chamber—and I have a far higher regard and respect for him than for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—that if he is at all concerned about the real growth of this area of Lanarkshire and the new town of Livingstone, he will take immediate steps to let the Minister of Transport know that the railway line that goes through that growth area and serves the Livingstone new town will not close.
Another new town, Cumbernauld, is in exactly the same position. The railway line from Cumbernauld is threatened with closure by the Minister of Transport. Surely it is nonsense for the Government to present a White Paper and to choose these areas as growth areas while, at the same time, neglecting to look at the Beeching proposals. If they had looked at them, they ought to have announced in the White Paper that these closures in the growth areas and new towns would certainly not take place. If that had been contained in the White Paper the people of Scotland might have had more hope that the Government, after 12 years of shilly-shallying, had decided to do something about their ills.
Even if there is a rapid and real improvement of the intrastructure of Scotland, or of the designated areas,

even if housing improvements and educational facilities are there in abundance and all the other amenities are provided and the scars are swept away, and that does not attract sufficient new jobs to our people in Scotland, what do the Government propose to do? The White Paper is completely silent on this aspect.
The Secretary of State yesterday referred to the Labour Party's policy statement, Signposts for the Sixties, and my hen. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, quoted from that policy. I suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland that not only should he read Signpost for the Sixties or rather little bits of the briefs on it that are sent from his own Conservative Central Office, but he should also read Signposts for Scotland, which contains the Labour Party's proposals for the rehabilitation of our country.
We state quite clearly there that we shall give every encouragement to private industry to settle in Scotland, but if that does not bring sufficient jobs to Scotland we are not silent, as the White Paper is and as all the Ministers are on whit then must be done. We say that it is the Government's responsibility to step in and to provide work under public enterprise, so our policy differs very greatly indeed from that of the Government.
I say again to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that we in Scotland have no fear at all of Tory propaganda against nationalisation and public ownership. While we should give all possible help to attract private enterprise—and I have the closest cooperation with every industry in my constituency—we would never sink to the depths to which the Minister sank when these industries were nationalised, when he advised lack of co-operation by the very people who were needed to run them and said that if they co-operated they would be Quisling's. We would not do that on this side of the House.
If the Government and Tory Party were not strangled by their own doctrinaire philosophy, they would be able to realise the success of the nationalised industries. I have some proof of that success. I have here the


Government's latest Bulletin for Industry, dealing with the nationalised industries. I find, under the heading "Productivity, costs and return on capital":
So far as each industry is concerned,"—
that is, the nationalised industries—
it is the Government's policy to obtain improvements in financial results by improving efficiency and consequent reduction in costs.
I agree with that completely.
The nationalised industries have made substantial cost reductions by improved efficiency. For example, output per man shift in the coal industry increased by nearly 8 per cent, in 1962, and the average cost per ton mined has remained constant in real prices over the last five years. Sixty per cent, of all the output is now powerhauled and this is expected to rise to at least 80 per cent in the next three years The capital cost of electric power stations has been progressively reduced, from £53 per kW in 1948 to £35 per kW in coal-fired stations now being built for commissioning in 1965 onwards, despite increases of about 93 per cent between 1948 and 1962 in wages and materials entering into power station construction costs
Is not that a marvellous story of success? That is why we are not afraid of any Tory attack on nationalisation. That is why we believe that if private enterprise, with all encouragement, does not bring sufficient jobs to the North-East, to Scotland and to areas in Wales, a Labour Government will step in and bring public enterprise to those areas. We feel that the only hope for such areas is to ensure that a Labour Government is returned.
I now want to say a word about my own constituency, where there is the cold-rolling part of a new strip steel mill. The management and workers in that mill have worked wondersin solving the teething troubles connected with the production of this new type of steel in Scotland. They have worked as a team. But quite a number of those men are working only four days a week because there are not sufficient orders for the excellent strip steel which they are producing.
The Government must take some of the responsibility for this. Some of the industries that we need in Scotland require strip steel, industries often referred to as consumer industries. A week ago I met the management and the men and had discussions with them. There is no doubt that both sides feel strongly that in that area the Government ought

to be doing everything possible to attract these new industries. I am glad to be able to say that in Moodiesburn, which is a mile or two away from the mill, we have attracted one of the best firms from Wales, the South Wales Switch-gear Company. We are delighted to have that firm there. That very businesslike and shrewd company chose the area of Moodiesburn because the site was considered to be excellent.
For years I have been trying to get successive Presidents of the Board of Trade to do something useful in that area. I ask the Minister to get his regional office to have a look at this Moodiesburn site and see whether it can become one of the big new industrial estates, beginning by building advance factories which would use the material produced by the strip steel mill. This is an opportunity for the Government to show that they are in earnest about this development.
There has been criticism today of the cumbersome nature of the working of B.O.T.A.C. I have had experience of this in my constituency. I understand that the Estimates Committee recommended to the Government that a review should be made of the workings of the B.O.T.A.C. procedure. I should like to know whether the Government have done anything about that. It is important that B.O.T.A.C. should work very quickly. It is also important that B.O.T.A.C. should not have the final decision, because sometimes the decision must be political. At present, the Government cannot make a political decision because of the terms of the Act, and I should like the Government to consider that matter.
We have been told that the B.M.C. factory would result in ancillary industries being setup. There is one such firm which wants to start in my constituency, six miles from the B.M.C. factory. It has made an application to B.O.T.A.C. and it is now complaining about the delay. There are two places in that growth area where action could speedily be taken to show that the Government really mean to do something for Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): Perhaps I may


answer the hon. Lady's question concerning B.O.T.A.C. All the procedures are being reviewed. The review of some has been completed already. As for standard grants for building, the questionnaire has been greatly simplified so that it is much easier for firms to fill it in. In addition, there are now representatives in the regions to assist firms in completing the form and supplying the details. We find in some cases that time is taken up by many of the firms in producing up-to-date accounts and in making forecasts of their possibilities. It is right that B.O.T.A.C. should examine these matters thoroughly, and many firms pay tribute to the accountants of B.O.T.A.C. who assist them in doing this.
The hon. Lady says that the decision should be political. Is she urging that we should make available considerable sums of money to private firms, even though we may be advised that a project may not be viable? That would need a great deal of thought, and I do not think one should support that suggestion. That is what a political decision means. Either a decision is taken on the economic viability of a firm, or else there is a political decision, which means that it may not be economically viable.

Miss Herbison: I am grateful for the information which the right hon. Gentleman has given us on this question of the review. Now I come to the question of the political decision. I do not want to attract to Scotland industries which will not prove to be viable eventually. Sometimes it is a question of the amount which B.O.T.A.C. decides should be given, and it may be that the firm feels that it needs more in order to carry out the job that it wants to do. In such a case, which may be marginal but sometimes is very important, I would say that that is the time when the Government should make their political decision.
It is of the greatest importance, whether we have a Labour Government or a Tory Government, that there should be a thorough investigation into the financial standing of any firm that wants to go to such an area. As I have said, I want viable firms to go to Scotland. I hope that the Minister, in the remaining few months in which he will hold

his office, will show the energy and initiative that he has shown in other spheres.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Although we are discussing two White Papers, it is clear from the debate that this is a national and not a regional problem. The reason why managers, their specialists, executives and skilled men are reluctant to go to the North-East is the same reason that they are reluctant to go to the North-West, to Ilfracombe or any of the other places, such as Anglesey, which have been mentioned in the debate.
The truth is that from a line north of the Trent and west of the Severn there is a quality of life which people think is not as good as that south of the Trent and east of the Severn. It has been noticeable in the debate that apart from Ministers, no Members have spoken or, I think, sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, except those from north of the Trent or west of the Severn.
Why is there this reluctance to move from what one may call broadly the London area? Why is there in this industrial country a unique problem which does not apply, I think, in any other industrial country to the same extent? People in Germany, for instance, are just as ready to live in the Hamburg area or the Munich area as they are to live in the area of the capital. In the United States people are just as ready to live in Minneapolis, or in its surroundings, Boston or San Francisco as they are to live in NewYork, if not more so. Only in the United Kingdom have we this desperate imbalance between the South and the North. The only way to cure this desperate problem is, quite bluntly, to make life in the North more attractive and life in the South less attractive. Both prongs of that attack must go forward.
I am glad that the long-term imbalance has at last been faced, because, although it is true that some grants there and some tax concessions here have had a good effect on the short and medium term, for the structural imbalance, nothing less than improving the quality of life north of the Trent and west of the Severn will do. That is why I think there must be decisions taken at national level


and not, as is popularly thought, at regional level.
The Leader of the Liberal Party yesterday made a plea for autonomous, if not virtually sovereign, regions. That sounds very nice, and it might work in the North and the West. But I cannot see how it would work at the other end of the scale, in the South-East, because no autonomous body ruling the South-East, as he implies, would ever take the steps necessary—the sometimes radical steps and the sometimes harsh decisions—to keep the rateable value down in the area and to keep industry out.
Such examples of autonomy as we have had—for example, in the building of offices where the decision is, on the whole, made in the local planning authority—have shown that it is more than flesh and blood can stand for a local regional authority to resist the temptation to increase its rateable value, expansion and general activity, whereas in the case of the industrial development certificates—decisions taken nationally by the Board of Trade—there is much more firmness, toughness and reluctance to allow further expansion in the South-East. Therefore, the Liberal plea for regional sovereignty would not solve the problem of the South-East where toughness must be the order of the day.
This correcting of the imbalance involves the acceptance of a certain amount of industrial inefficiency and extravagance. In every case which one has and which I used to have professionally concerning applications for building industrial or commercial premises in the South-East it is always possible to make out a good case showing why it is necessary that a firm should be near its component manufacturers in Lewisham, near Gatwick Airport or Southampton Docks, or that its great market is in the Reading area; and of course they are all valid. However, it must be accepted that if we are not to congest the South-East and desert the North we must incur a certain amount of expense by resisting the very good individual arguments in each case.
This is, and must be, a national plan. The crux of it, rightly, is to be found in paragraph 7(ix) of the introduction to the

White Paper on the North-East. There we find the very revealing decision that, whereas 5½per cent, of the public investment of Great Britain now goes to the North-East, this is to rise to 7 per cent. The implications of that are a national decision, because this means that some places will have their proportion reduced. I hope that it does not mean that whichever region gets in first is permanently pre-empting the total resources. I do not think that it means that. Even those of us who represent areas outside the North-East realise that there is still some margin to go for others, but there is a danger that if this is done bit by bit those who get in first will have this pre-emption.
I want to try to follow the example of the audience of the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade who, when he went to the North-West, said that he found no envy or sour grapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) said that that was his experience in Manchester. It is a mistake to think that Manchester is the same as Lancashire, just as it would be a mistake to say that Paris was the same as France. It is true that around Manchester there is a certain congestion, but in the cotton belt of Lancashire the story is very different. One could almost apply the first six paragraphs of the White Paper on the North-East to the North-West.
The White Paper on the North-East states:
It is a region in transformation
not "a region in decline."
The problem is one of adjustment
from old industries to new. That is exactly the problem in the North-West.
The overriding need
is not only to diversify the structure.
… these measures need to be reinforced by positive action to improve the whole range of services which underpin the region's economic activity and to make it demonstrably an attractive place in which to live and work.
Then there is the problem of derelict sites and bad roads. It is almost exactly the same story in the North-West, the only difference being that for the present the North-West has a lower unemployment rate, and that may be because it is easier to adapt disused cotton mills to other purposes than it is to adapt coal mines or shipbuilding yards.
A great deal of skill and self-help has been involved in converting old cotton mills to other purposes, but to diversify industries in this way has this great danger. By self-help one sometimes puts oneself out of the running for permanent improvement in the quality of life. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with all the sincerity that I can, that the quality of life will not be improved by denying, as has been done, to the people of the North-West, particularly those in the cotton area, industrial development certificates under Section 14 of the Act simply because there are many old mills which can be used for the purposes required.
This has happened. There are many areas there in which the physical amenities and quality of life are very poor but which have been denied certificates simply because there are disused cotton mills which could be used. if it is important, as I believe it is, to improve the quality of life in those areas for exactly the same reason as it is to improve it in the North-East, we must be allowed new industrial buildings as well as new roads and things of that sort.
I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is examining the possibility of a growth area—this great new concept—in the North-West. I hope that my right hon. Friend will choose the weaving belt, that area around Blackburn, Burnley, Darwen and Accrington which has had such transformations. I hope that he will not reject it merely because it is not flat. There is an idea that in order to be a growth area an area must be flat, and that is wrong. These hills add immensely to the quality of life.
It is some consolation when working to be able to lift one's eyes up unto the hills, and that is some compensation for not being able to lift them up unto the Hilton Hotel, which may be the only alternative if we do not soon restrain this imbalance between London and the North. I, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to look at this area as a growth area and not to be put off by stories that hills make building and communications too difficult. I do not believe that to be the case.
Quality of life is vital for the movement back of the population. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) said he thought that housing was the most important of the priorities for quality of life. I believe, however, that it is not the most important but that clean air is the most important in these areas.
One will not get people to come from the South and build houses there if the air is so dirty, as it still is so very often, that the very cows in the fields are blackened. One will not get people to go there unless they first know that they and their children can breathe clean air.
I hope that there can be a little more assistance on the industrial side in this matter in order to give these firms still belching out that air, in spite of having spent a good deal of money, some subsidy or subvention if they are trying to avoid creating dirty air. They do not get enough assistance.
I have taken up with the Minister of Housing and Local Government a case in my constituency of a firm which does its best to provide clean air. But the job would involve the expenditure of so much money that it would go out of production and stop the employment of 200 or 300 people. It is a terrible dilemma. I hope, therefore, that clean air will be the first thing tackled in improving the quality of life. Other things have been mentioned in this debate and in the White Papers.
I end with a few words about the Civic Trust for the North-West. This is a self-help organisation under the dynamic direction of Colonel Michael Barton. It is doing a great deal to clean up these towns and give them a pride in their appearance, advising them on lay-out and on pilot schemes to make them attractive places for the executives and managers who must be induced to go to the North and who cannot be allowed any longer to clutter up the South-East as it is at present.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, I believe, a convert in this matter. It is, of course, difficult for a member of the Government who sits for a constituency in the London area to be very enthusiastic about this until he comes into direct contact with it. But I am sure that, as a result of these White Papers and of his visits round


the country, my right hon. Friend is now totally convinced that we must prevent this imbalance from getting worse and, indeed, create a better situation by freeing the South-East of this terrible congestion, giving the opportunity to the North of the country to make a much better contribution, and making life much fuller and more abundant by measures which I hope he will enforce as strictly and imaginatively as the White Paper suggests.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I followed the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) with interest. I was wondering what he thought were the important qualities in the so-called quality of life to which he referred. As his speech developed, I realised that he laid enormous emphasis on the importance of clean air. I am sure that he is right about that in the North-West. I believe I am right in saying that the Forestry Commission has difficulty in planting trees and growing them successfully on the Pennines because of smoke pollution from the North-West.
I represent a constituency in a part of the country which has some of the cleanest air in the land and which is an area of great amenity. Yet even so we have not been able to attract the industrialists we need for development. To us, the question of the development of the right infrastructure and the right services in order to attract industry is all important. Two weeks ago I was sorry to hear the Secretary of State when challenged on the small priority the Government have so far given to the problems of the South-West, say that the Government had no work in hand at the moment for the region.
Today, I noticed that the Chief Secretary made not one reference to the region. So it was with great interest that I listened to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) outlining some of the problems of Devon, and, of course, of the South-West as a whole. Very rightly, he also laid great stress on the need for proper transport facilities. No doubt he, like many other hon. Members representing the South-West, was as disturbed as I was by the recent announcement by the Ministry of Trans-

port of its road building programme for the whole of the country, which gave very low priority to the South-West.
I wish to quote from the Dorset Evening Echo as an example of the profound disappointment felt in the South-West at the lack of priority given by the Minister to its transport or road building needs. The Evening Echo said on 29th October:
Three years ago we wrote in this column: 'Trunk roads in the South-West are being starved of money and their condition is growing steadily worse. This is certainly the case in Hampshire and Dorset. In both places the county councils have been struggling unsuccessfully to obtain from the Ministry of Transport adequate funds to maintain and improve roads under their care'.
What was true in November, I960, is still true in October, 1963. Yesterday, Mr. Marples announced further details of his £212 million five-year plan for improving the nation's roads. The Wessex region has been virtually ignored, only a few small improvement schemes having been sanctioned for this area.
How much longer is this part of Southern England to be neglected?
This seems to be the crucial problem for the South-West. Anyone who looks at the map will see that it is a narrow peninsula about 200 miles long. The problem could, therefore, perfectly simply be solved, as the hon. Member for Devon, North pointed out, by building a motorway from the Bristol area right down to the tip of the peninsula, perhaps supplemented by a motorway running due south from Bristol towards Dorset.
From a motorway system of that kind, a feeder road system could be built up linking the motorways with centres of population and providing the kind of transport service that the area needs. But, so far from dealing with this problem, at the moment the Government threaten closure of branch line after branch line. It is factors of this sort that are at present discouraging industrialists from going where they are so desperately needed. It seems to be no accident that the highest unemployment rates in the region are in Cornwall and North Devon, the remotest areas of the South-West. We need transport facilities that will make it attractive for industrialists to go to that part of the country.
I hope that the Minister of Transport and the Government will begin to take a little more seriously than they appear


to have done so far the needs of the South-West and will also study the memorandum of the joint committee as presented today and give it the attention it deserves.
The fact that, in 1958, the unemployment rate in the North-East was no higher than the national average is an indication of how quickly serious unemployment can develop in a region. It has arisen there in about four or five years. I believe that there are already in the South-West indications of serious trouble to come. I want to spend a little time on what I believe to be some basic problems of the region.
The South-West is heavily dependent upon agriculture, which is still its most important industry. But, of course, with increasing mechanisation, there has been a gradual decline in the number of workers required by it. This has meant, increasingly, a decline of employment opportunities in the rural areas. This, in turn, has affected the vitality of rural life and, of course, the vitality of the villages of the South-West.
I was very interested recently to see in the Western Gazette a leading article pointing out this difficulty. It said:
… one suggestion is to select for development small towns and villages which have the potentialities and the necessary services and amenities.
I take an example from my constituency of the kind of development that could take place in many parts of the South-West.
Fortunately, we still have an excellent railway service running through the village of Wool. A few years ago the Atomic Energy Authority set up an establishment within two or three miles of the village. This building, although it is of very considerable size, has, if anything, added to the amenities of the area. It has provided a great deal of employment which is badly needed in that part of my constituency and now no one there makes any criticism of such development.
I am not suggesting development generally on that scale in rural areas, because, clearly, a great deal of it would detract from amenity. But it seems to me that the scheme set out in the Western Gazette could help to arrest the decline of vitality in the villages and

small towns of the South-West where, in addition, we are relatively short of the kind of amenities which large towns can provide. I believe that there is a strong case for developing some of the South-Western towns already in existence and, possibly, a strong case for the development of larger towns.
I believe I am right to put forward some of these suggestions and to emphasise as much as I can the points already made by the hon. Member for Devon, North because of the lack of interest which the Government appear to display in this subject. I am glad that the Chief Secretary has come back, because I would like to remind him of the importance of the South-West and express the hope that the Government will press on a little harder than they have done in looking after the interests of that part of the country.
At present, wage levels in the South-West are markedly lower than the national average of weekly earnings. It is an interesting fact that the average weekly earnings in the South-West region, according to the latest figures that I could obtain, are exactly £2less than the average weekly earnings in the London region. It is not, therefore, surprising that London acts as a magnet to the young people living in the South-West. Quite apart from the lack of opportunities for young people near their own towns, it provides them with an opportunity which they may take to get away. The result is that the South-West is starved of the kind of vitality which young people could bring to it. That is why I ask the Government to take the matter a great deal more seriously andprovide the South-West with the kind of transport system which it needs to develop and also to encourage industry to move into the region.
We had a similar experience in Dorset to the one quoted by the hon. Member for Devon, North. In 1960, an American firm, Formex, was anxious to move into the Weymouth area. To all intents and purposes agreement had been reached between the local authority, which was prepared to provide an industrial site, and this firm. But the firm met with nothing but discouragement and obstruction from the Board of Trade, with the consequence that it went to the Whitstable area, in the South-East.


There, the firm is doing very well. But, like so many other firms which moved into that part of the world, inevitably it is adding to the congestion problem in the South-East.
I cannot understand why this firm was discouraged in its desire to settle in a factory on an industrial estate which the Weymouth Corporation was prepared to provide. I want to see a great deal more encouragement from the Government for the South-West. Unless this comes quickly I am afraid that we shall see this part of the country facing the kind of problems which have been discussed and which already exist in such a serious form in the North-East and Central Scotland.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I hope that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) on his maiden speech. We all realise what an ordeal a maiden speech can be. I think that my hon. Friend performed with great confidence and fluency. Having been in this House for four years, I only wish that I could give a similar impression of confidence and fluency.
As this is the first debate in which I have spoken since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade—it is quite a mouthful—was appointed, I should like to offer my congratulations to him. I do not think that any appointment has given me greater pleasure. I realise that it is a vitally important job and I am certain that my right hon. Friend will be successful in his office. I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). I am sorry that he is not present in the Chamber. He happens to be a constituent of mine. I hope that he will make many more speeches from the Opposition Front Bench during many years to come. As I say, the hon. Gentleman is a constituent of mine and I always try to be nice to my constituents. That is why I am saying all this. But I hope that he will see the error of his

ways and will vote for his Conservative candidate at the next election.
I am delighted to welcome this programme for the North-East. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and certain other of my hon. Friends, last Session I abstained from taking part in the Division after an economic debate, because I felt that not enough was being done for the North-East. We were delighted when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Science was appointed, with a special responsibility for the North-East area. The party opposite cannot have it both ways. At the time of that appointment they said that it was a "gimmick" deliberately aimed at getting votes at the next General Election. Now their cry is that it is all long-term and that nothing is being done short-term. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must make up their minds. Either it is a "gimmick" to get votes, or it is a long-term policy for the good of the area. I happen to believe that it is for the good of the area.
The north-east of England is one of our old industrial areas which in the years following the Industrial Revolution produced much of our national wealth. It also bore many of the sores and scars of that Industrial Revolution. I think it is obvious that the North-East has not had its fair share of our national prosperity recently. Surely it is logical for any Government to try to show that the drift from these old industrial areas into the Midlands and the South-East must stop, because if nothing is done to stop that drift, ultimately the South-East and the Midlands will become problem areas because of the increasing population and the difficulties that that will bring in respect of housing and education, to mention only two topics. The principal aim must be to spread prosperity more evenly over the whole country and I shall support anything which I believe to be beneficial to the north-east of England. After listening to some hon. Members opposite one would think that the Government deliberately created unemployment—

Mr. Callaghan: They did nothing to discourage it.

Mr. Montgomery: —and I think this very unworthy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think that any Government, of whatever political complexion,


wishes to see a high rate of unemployment. Any Government must always seek to preserve a buoyant and strong economy. I am sorry, but I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is saying.

Mr. Callaghan: I was saying that no one wants unemployment, but the policy of the Government may well lead to it, as it has in fact done twice before, in 1957 and again in 1961.

Mr. Montgomery: With respect, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the record of this Government on employment over the last 12 years will stand comparison with the record of the party opposite when in power immediately after the war. One of the cries of hon. Members opposite each time they are tackled on this subject is that there had been a great war and that they were faced with all the problems accruing from it. No body denies that, but in those clays they had markets into which they could sell more easily. Then we had a sellers' market. Today it is a buyers' market and it is more difficult to expert goods abroad. Therefore, I think that the level of employment in this country over the last 12 years is something upon which this Government should be congratulated.
To get back to the plans for the North-East; one of the considerations which I think tremendously important is the increase in public investment which has stepped up from £55 million to £80 million in the current year, increasing to £90 million next year. That is a tremendous advance. I am delighted that one of the things which is receiving special attention is the improvement of roads within the area, and from the area to the rest of the country, I have long advocated that we should have a motorway between the North-East and the booming Midlands, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport never seems to agree with me on this subject. However, according to the plan, we are to have an extension of the M.1 to connect with the A.1at Doncaster and that at least is some compensation which will certainly be advantageous to the North-East. I believe that the better communications between the North-East and the rest of the country, the more attractive will be the area to industrialists, and certainly to those industrialists seeking to expand.
I am disappointed that there is no mention in the Report of another bridge across the Tyne between the present Tyne Bridge and the site of the Tyne tunnel. The lack of such a bridge is one of the causes of the: traffic bottleneck in the City of Newcastle. If we had a bridge, I feel that it would be a tremendous improvement to the communications in the Tyne-side area. I commend the Government for the grant of £250,000 towards the capital cost of improving the airport at Woolsington. This airport serves a tremendous need in the North-East, but its present state is most unimpressive when compared with airports in America serving smaller cities which are less important than Newcastle, One wonders what sort of impression is gained by an industrialist coming to Newcastle for the first time when he steps off the plane at this airport, and the sooner we get an airport worthy of the North-East, the better it will be for the area.
A few moments ago I spoke about the scars of the Industrial Revolution. One of them is the bad housing which, unfortunately, is all too prevalent m the North-East and in all our old industrial areas. Therefore, the aim to increase the rate of house building in the North-East to 25,000 a year is particularly welcome. I think that the plan for modernising our towns is extremely worth while because the more attractive we can make our town centres, the more social and cultural facilities we can provide, the more attractive we shall make the north-east area to people who want to settle there. It will act as. a magnet to draw them to the North-East. Often I have heard people say that they came to the North-East with foreboding because they felt that they were being condemned to live in some outpost. But having settled there, they have grown to love the area and have found the local people friendly and charming. Having once settled, nothing would induce them to move away to any other part of the country.
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) chastised the Government on this Report for selecting a growth zone in the North-East and for not taking the whole of the area. I sympathise with those parts of the North-East which are not included in the growth zones, but I feel that the Government's plan is realistic because what they are doing by means of this


plan is to concentrate on those parts of the area which are most promising for development instead of spreading things evenly over an enormous area. They are concentrating mainly on the area where growth can take place much more quickly. As the places within the growth zone become more prosperous the prosperity will spread outwards into the areas outside the growth zone.
I wish to mention two problems, one of which is urgent. It is that of unemployment among young people. This is a serious problem in the North-East. The 1951 census figures shown in the Report reveal that the proportion of school children in the region was above the national average. Therefore, today in the North-East we have a serious social problem caused by the unemployment among young people. Unemployment is bad enough at any time, but it must be soul-destroying for anyone to begin his adult life living on the dole. I visited the youth employment bureau in Newcastle recently, on a Friday, and it was worrying to read the numbers of unemployed. When one actually goes to the youth employment bureau, and sees the youngsters who make up the numbers one reads about in the papers it brings home to one how tremendous the human problem is. I should like to see some sort of crash programme instituted by the Government to ease the situation in the North-East and in other areas of high unemployment.
What is being done to encourage the expansion of the headquarters of firms, their sales organisations and their research sections to move into areas of high unemployment? I feel that the Government could give a lead here by transferring staffs of Government Departments or of nationalised industries into the North-East and similar areas.
Nevertheless, I believe that the plan offers a real hope for the north-east of England. It will be necessary for the Government and for the areas in the North-East themselves to "sell" the virtues of their part of the country to industries which are thinking of expanding. It is no benefit to the North-East whatever if people harp on the 1930s and paint a picture of woe and depression.

Our aim should be to show that the North-East is an area of great potential where there are great assets.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend made a very important announcement when he said:
What I wish to add is that even if it were necessary to moderate the growth of public service investment in the country as a whole, exceptions would be made for these growth areas where the programme will be maintained so long as the necessary resources are available. Local auhorities, the construction industries and those who live in the regions can look forward with confidence to continued backing from the Government for the development and modernisation of the basic public services for which the investment is being used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3 December, 1963; Vol. 685, c, 992.]
I believe, therefore, that this programme heralds a period of great opportunity for the North-East, and, with the assurances which were given by my right hon. Friend yesterday, I believe that the people of the North-East will accept the challenge. I look forward to the time, in the not-too-distant future, when the prosperity of the whole of North-East England will be much more soundly based than ever before.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: I wish that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery would at least try to be fair about the unemployment figures. If he says that the unemployment in the 1930s was inevitable and that the Government could not do anything about it, well and good; but he must admit, if he looks at Table I in the plan, that in most of the years there was a Tory Government. For instance, in the period 1923–27, there was 15 per cent, unemployment in the North-East and, again, in the period 1930–34, to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) referred, there was 27.5 per cent. These are monthly averages. So one could go on.

Mr. Montgomery: I did not really talk about unemployment in the 'thirties. I did not blame any Government for what happened at that particular period—

Mr. Boyden: Naturally.

Mr. Montgomery: No, not naturally—because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) pointed out, one


knows that in the period 1929–31 the figures were much worse than under a Conservative or National Government. I spoke about the figures between 1945 and 1951, when the party opposite was in power.

Mr. Jay: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the figures were worst in January, 1933? Everybody knows that.

Mr. Boyden: In the period 1930–34, the monthly average was 27.5 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that was due to a Labour Government? Again, to take the recent figures, they were worst in the Northern Region between 1959 and 1962, every year except one. I shall come back to figures a little later.
One of my local newspapers called this plan mutton dressed as lamb. I thought that that was rather a good summary of the situation. It is the most amateurish document which I have ever seen come out of a Government Department. There have recently been some very good Reports made by Committees to the Government—the Robbins Report, the Newsom Report, the Buchanan Report, and others—documents prepared with a very high degree of efficiency and at a very high level of thought. But this document actually has within it a sentence which tears the whole thing to pieces. Under the heading, "The Pattern of Development", we read in the first paragraph:
It must be emphasised that the figures put forward are all very approximate and are merely attempts to show the possible scale of the trends envisaged. They are neither predictions nor proposals.
What on earth are they? This is a document upon which the future of the North-East is to be based, a document in which there are no figures worth talking about at all.
This is characteristic of the Government. Their method of proceeding is by special high-powered committee to look at one section of a problem. Here, in regard to regional development, they have followed exactly the pattern which was followed in education. In education, the Government have taken the line that one should look in isolation at a part of education, whereas, of course, everyone knows that education is a unity. Precisely the same thing has been done in regard to regional planning and

industrial development, and here is the first miserable product of a piece of study which is hardly worthy of a training college student's research.
The best argument to bear out my point in this connection is to be found in what is said about travel-to-work. On page 30, there is the heading "Mobility". The paragraph refers to my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley). This is what is said:
Most of those likely to be coming to work there"—
i.e., the growth zone—
from elsewhere will be from towns or villages not far away. The distances of travel-to-work involved will therefore be quite modest and in line with present trends.
When I challenged him about the distances that many young people would have to travel from Barnard Castle and Middleton-in-Teesdale to Teesdale, the Ministry's training centre, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said that he knew the area very well and the distances were quite small. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman travels by motor car. My constituentshave to travel by bus, by train, if there is one, or by bicycle, and the distances involved are by no means small. From Middleton-in-Teesdale—where there was 25 per cent, unemployment at the height of the winter for several months—even from Barnard Castle, which is quite well served, it takes hours to travel by bus to Teesdale, and I doubt very much that the young people in Middleton would be able to get to the training courses in time. If the proposal to close the Bishop Auckland—Darlington line is put into effect, there will be people who will just not be able to get to work. I hope that the Chief Secretary will put this point to the Minister of Transport. If the people in my constituency are to have to travel these distances they must have a guarantee that some form of public transport will be preserved.
This brings me back to the business of Government by ad hoc commitee. We have a Beeching Report, a Buchanan Report, and then a little Report like this. They do not hang together. As for making the quality of life in my constituency better, all that is proposed will add to the drain away of young people, the best and most energetic people, and, of


course, will accelerate the decline of the amenities which we have.
Hon. Members opposite have talked a lot about the quality of life. The quality of life in my constituency has for a good many years been a very good quality of life. The life in the villages that are classed as D, and which the document talks of as places where there will have to be careful scrutiny of social investment, have a most vigorous church life, youth clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Guides and football teams. Very often the schools are of miserable construction—one in Witton Park is a miserable building put up temporarily in the 'thirties—but, as schools, they are excellent. That is the sort of life that excluding Bishop Auckland, Shildon and Barnard Castle from the growth zone will gradually undermine.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State is prepared to see the Barnard Castle and Shildon councils over this matter of the boundaries. The boundary excluding these places is as amateurish as the basis of the plan itself, and the Government must reconsider where they are drawn. The position at present is quite absurd. That a village like Pierce-bridge—and I have nothing against Piercebridge; it is a splendid village—should be in the growth zone, while Bishop Auckland is excluded—by a line that is not even drawn straight—is ridiculous. Bishop Auckland is the commercial centre of a wide area round about, much of it included in the growth zone. The town of Shildon will undoubtedly lose 700 or 800 acres to the new town of Newton Aycliffe—yet Shildon itself is excluded.
To improve the quality of life in this part of the country requires that the people making the plan should consult the people affected by it. Neither Bishop Auckland nor Shildon have been consulted about the size of Newton Aycliffe, yet half the working population of Newton Aycliffe will have to come from my hon. Friend's constituency (North-West Durham) and mine. We are not attacking Newton Aycliffe as a town, or its growth. We are attacking the way in which Bishop Auckland and Shildon have been completely ignored, although they are inextricably mixed up in the life of that part of the country.
I object to the patronising tone of the document when referring to what it calls the modernisation of towns. Just listen to this:
The modernisation of towns is of course more than just central redevelopment. There must also be continual improvement of a wide range of civil facilities, from libraries and swimming baths to street lighting and public gardens …
Does the Treasury Bench really think that there is a single councillor in the North-East that does not know that?
What the Labour-controlled councils know—I cannot speak for the Tory controlled council, although I expect that many of them know the same—is that they have had the building programmes of branch libraries slashed over the years by the party opposite. They have had swimming-bath programmes—including the scheme at Bishop Auckland—cut out time after time. One absolutely scandalous case occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Stones). The local miners' welfare fund had a very large sum of money that those in charge of it were prepared to put into the construction of a swimming-bath, but the Ministry of Housing and Local Government stepped in and deliberately stopped that project, although they have built the bath recently. This is the sort of policy that every Labour councillor throughout the North-East knows very well indeed.
Improve the quality of life—Durham County Council spent many thousands of pounds on improving the Bowes Museum. I must admit that Lord Eccles, the then Minister of Education, was very helpful, but the major contribution to that improvement came from the Durham County Council and not from Government sources at all. There has hardly been a council housing programme in the North-East that has not been slashed by the party opposite at one time or another.
As for schools, when Durham was starving in the 'thirties, and new grammar schools were being built in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, they could not be built in the North-East and Durham because there was not the money for them—the money was going into building roads to keep men from starving. That is one of the


reasons for the backlog in schools, and it is one of the reasons why Durham today has to come forward with plans for the reconstruction of grammar schools because the reconstruction schemes are still not completed.
Bishop Auckland grammar school has been turned into a big grammar school for boys and girls, but the money still needed to make that a more effective grammar school—it has always been effective—is not there. There has been a Government cut. The new grammar technical school in Barnard Castle is only half a school because, again, the Government has not included it in the programme. That was going on all the time I was on the Durham County Council and my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) was on the Durham County Council. Talking about improving the quality of life is all right, but it has not been supported by the Tory Government in the way that local people have wanted these 10 years.
The future position does not look as bright as hon. Members opposite have been making out. The only finance which has very largely been made good by the central Government is in relation to derelict land and roads. I have been campaigning ever since I have been in this House for a larger grant for derelict land, and only in the last few months has this been achieved. One of the Ministers in another place who is associated with this scheme came to Durham two or three years ago and expressed astonishment at what the Durham County Council had done over the years in the reclamation of pit heaps.
The county council's record there is very much better than the Government's. It is only now, a few months before a General Election, that the Government have discovered that there is a derelict land problem in the North-East. What is likely is that the local authorities will have to make a much larger rate levy in future, because of this general programme in Cmnd. 2206, and one of the things the Government must do is announce greatly increased rate deficiency grants in areas in the growth zone where this improvement of the quality of life is to take place. Otherwise, we shall have the quite ridiculous position of the Government pushing

their plans forward, and the local Tories complaining at local elections about the rates going up.
Sometimes Tories masquerading as Independents make out that their policy is almost the same as the Labour Party's, but there is always one rub—they are never prepared to spend money. I hope that the order will go out from the Tory Central Office to Tories, and fellow-travelling Tories, that, in future, they should support the local rates charged because they have to be paid to get the Government out of their mess.
It is all very well for the Government to set up an office in Newcastle, and suggest that it can advise the local authorities in technical matters and so help them over the difficulties that they will meet with expansion, but the fact is that there is a shortage of professional and technical people in the North-East, and that helps to hold up the development. One of the minor causes of unemployment in the North-East is the shortage of architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, plasterers, bricklayers—teachers, for that matter. It has nothing at all to do with the so-called quality of life in the North-East. It was deliberate policy on the part of the Government, until very recently, to depress the conditions of the public servant. I can remember on the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board when architects, engineers and quantity surveyors were leaving the office to go into private employment because of the wage freeze and the long, slow negotiations between the Ministry of Health and this category of worker.
The situation is improving but we have this overall shortage, and part of it is due to inadequate remuneration, For example, the Government do not intend to carry out the kind of policy which would ensure that areas where the number of teachers fall below the quota can recruit a shock brigade to deal with the situation.

Mr. Ainsley: I could give my hon. Friend chapter and verse of a case in which a college is being closed down.

Mr. Boyden: The Newsom Report, in an Appendix, has a very sensible suggestion to deal with the matter. This is the kind of proposal with which the Government ought to be coming forward.
The North-East Report says that the region needs more office development. Nobody knows that better than my hon. Friends the Members for Durham and for Durham, North West and myself. For years we have campaigned to get the Government to fulfil the promise made by the Labour Government towards the end of its term of office to transfer Government Departments to Durham. The present chairman of the Durham County Council was concerned in an interview with a right hon. Gentleman opposite about this. The permanent official pleaded with him to be quiet and to accept what the Government had to say, and I remember that six months afterwards he said, "I was foolish. I should have blown my top at the way in which they were treating us". For years the City of Durham, which is Tory-controlled, the County Council and Durham M.P.s have pressed Government Departments to get them to fulfil the original promise.
There is serious misconception in this question of the quality of life. In his opening speech the Secretary of State said,
We do not want the diversity of regions to be weakened by an unchecked drift towards the south"—
that is quite right—
and an endless future of uniform asphalt conurbations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963, Vol. 685, c. 986].
But the Government have given very little consideration to that in this plan for the extension of the conurbations of Tyne-side and Tees-side. There is no systematic evidence adduced that the extra people they propose to encourage to go there will not lead to the situation which the right hon. Gentleman feared. Certainly the plan has no use at all for the quiet, good quality life which goes on at Crook, Willington, Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Barnard Castle and Middleton. Middleton and Barnard Castle are not even development districts. A place which had 25 per cent. male unemployment last winter is not even a shaded area on the map but is completely white.
The Government seem to have accepted as inevitable that industry must be crammed into conurbations. The very word itself is horrible. The life of the small places, where life is intimate and

pleasant and people know each other and there is a good interplay of local democracy, seems to have no attraction for them. We have a particular problem of what are called D villages, where the outlook is almost hopeless. I have always advocated a policy for these villages; although one does not expect them to expand, funds should be made available to tidy them up and to give them a reasonable life, particularly for the old people. Yet in six of the D villages in my constituency the Government turned down an application for old people's bungalows. They said that we must take old houses and modify them.
I want to read a sentence from a letter because my reaction to it represents the opinion of many of my constituents. It is to a redundant railway man, from the manager of the Ministry of Labour employment exchange. It begins:
Dear Sir,
With reference to your recent application for training, headquarters have intimated that as the prospects of finding employment locally are poor, they are not prepared to accept your application unless you are prepared to move from this area.
This is the sort of letter which my constituents will be receiving in increasing numbers in the future. So much for the conception of Government planning.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Percy Browne: One always feels at this time of the day, when one is told that one must sit down in five minutes, that perhaps it would have been better if one had not been called at all. [Hon. Members: "Then sit down."] Hon. Members will appreciate that one prepares what one wishes to say but then has to concertina it into a short time.
Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. An hon. Member from the Liberal Party and another from the Socialist Party from the southwest of England have had an opportunity to speak, and I am glad to have the chance to speak on this subject as a Member of the Government party.
It is an interesting coincidence that I made my maiden speech on the Local Employment Bill just before the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) made his speech on the same Bill, and I will read what I said then, because it is rare that one finds four


years later that one said exactly what one still thinks. I said:
If we are to stop this drift from the land, we must take action more drastic and also more expensive than is proposed in this Bill."—[Official Report, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 62.]
That was in November, 1959, talking about the Local Employment Act, 1960.
In Devon we have a static population. We gain by elderly folk coming into the district to retire, but our own young folk leave the district through lack of diversity of opportunity. This lack of diversity of opportunity is our biggest bugbear. The chairman of the Joint Committee for the Economy of the South-West, which has recently been formed in the four western counties, Sir George Hayter-James, said that this was what was wanted more than anything else. I mentioned this in my maiden speech. We are losing young folk from our countryside every year. It was interesting to read the article in The Times entitled "Drift from Devon's Dying Hamlets" and to see how the numbers have decreased in village schools and how many schools have closed down. We have such charming names as Sampford Courtenay, Woolfard is worthy, Stockleigh English and Cheriton Fitzpaine, some of which are in my constituency.
We have as our basic industries—first, farming. The population of farm employees in Devon has fallen from 19,000 to 12,000 over the past five or ten years. Through lack of improvement in farm incomes there has been amalgamation of farms on an ever-increasing scale. Tourism is our second biggest industry. Five million people come to the South-West every year. I use the word "industry" on purpose. We are far too dependent on shipbuilding, as I know to my cost, as a yard was closed down in my constituency earlier this year. A few of us managed to get it going again and it has been put on to a permanent basis, I am glad to say.
The key to our problem, which is slightly different from that of the North-East and of Scotland, is communications. We have everything else to offer. We have a lovely countryside, not too hilly. We have a seaboard. The cost of living is not nearly as high as it is in the south-east of England. I read in the paper the other day, for instance.

that the price of a house down there is about £1,500 less than the price of a house of the same size in the south of England. We have not derelict land. We have virgin soil to offer.
What we lack is communications. What we want is a decent road system to the South-West. I should like to join issue with the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on one or two points, but I must continue on my way. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will forgive me if I go on for a moment or two over my time. We have a feeling that we are literally at the end of the line. Our branch lines are threatened, though I was encouraged to discover from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, whom most of the time I fight, that if an area has been turned into a development district he will take that into account when a Beeching proposal is made.
There is a development district in my constituency. We have formed a development project in Bideford. In the last six months we have written to 900 firms asking them if they would be interested in coming to Bideford. Twenty firms have been sufficiently interested to say that they would like to come and have a look. Of these I am happy to say—I touch wood—that two may come, but the remaining 18, as well as many who said that they were not even prepared to come and have a look, had only one criticism to make about coming to our area. They said, "You have the labour. You agree that we can train youngsters from your technical college and the other schools. It is a lovely part of the world. You have everything we want. But your roads are lousy. The communications are hopeless. Until the communications are improved, we are not coming down there".
What I can never persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to realise is that tourism is an industry. During the summer months the roads get congested—over-congested. Not only may this drive away the tourists but managers of businesses come down in the summer months, see the congestion on our West Country roads as it is today, and say, "Not for us, chum". I want to impress upon the Government the necessity above all else of bringing


communications to the West Country. We want our regional plans. We have a very good beginning in the formation of the Joint Committee I mentioned. We will want undoubtedly, as the Devon County Council is already doing, more key settlements and more zoning of industry. As a palliative meanwhile, until we get our regional plan, will the Minister of Transport get out his bulldozers and his concrete and build us a road to the South-West? Then I am quite certain that we could, through our own initiative, attract many more industries to our part of the world.
In conclusion, I must disagree with this comment my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made in a letter he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers):
I was interested in what you said about expanding some of the towns in the West Country. We have, as you might have supposed, given some thought to it in the department. The great difficulty is that towns like Plymouth are too far from the exporting authorities with whom arrangements must be made if these town development schemes are to work. The exporting authorities do not want to send their people so far away, and it is certainly very difficult to persuade industry to relocate itself over these distances.
My experience is that none of the business men who come down there consider this as a difficulty in itself. We have to expand our ports. We must have better roads. Surely we must have growth zones and improve the communications between them. Although many of the things in the development plan for the North-East are what we want—schools, and so on—the first need for the West Country is better roads.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I understand that the Minister is anxious to rise at 9.25, so I will do my best to compress my remarks. Indeed, my speech may be all the better for being briefer.
I listened, as did the rest of the House, to the maiden speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) yesterday and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) today. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West brings to the House a long experience of muni-

cipal affairs. He will find, as many have found before him, that that is one of the best trainings which an hon. Member can have to enable him to make contributions to the welfare of our people through our debates in the House.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South, brings with him a self-confidence which I think all of us envied and admired. It is now getting on for 19 years since I became a Member of Parliament with the rest of the 1945 vintage, yet I find it no easier to speak here than when I first came to the House. Frankly, I find it rather harder.I only hope that the hon. Gentleman will maintain the perfect confidence that he showed. I congratulate him on his outstanding maiden speech.
I want to direct the attention of the House to the Motion and the Amendment that we are debating tonight. The Motion asks us to welcome
the emphasis placed … on regional development as a means of promoting the growth and well-being of the country.
We have not seen many signs of regional development yet. What we have had are two White Papers—one for the North-East and one for Scotland—which are not plans, but programmes for regional development—and there is a substantial difference between the two categories. What we have not seen—and this is the first point to which the Amendment refers—is similar proposals, even of this modest character, for the rest of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) and other hon. Members have referred to the position in south-west England. But even in some of the areas concerned, such as Durham—and my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) made a speech which, on all hands, was regarded as being a most moving plea for the people in his area—much has been omitted from the proposals for development. I hope that my hon. Friend's plea will not fall on deaf ears.
Then we heard that Wales was a success story. This is far from the truth. In North Wales the decline in the slate industry has resulted in a fall in the number of people working in the industry from about 13,000 before the war to 3,000 now. Relative to the scale


of population, what has happened to the slate industry in North Wales is as serious as the decline in the traditional industries in the north-east of England. Let us go to the other end of Wales, and consider some of the valleys.
In Abertillery, the figure of unemployment in September was 6.5 per cent.; in Brynmawr, it was 5.7 per cent.; in Caerphilly—and if there is to be a growth point anywhere it should be in Caerphilly, at the confluence of so many valleys; a meeting point where one would expect to see natural growth—it was 71 percent.; in Pontlottyn, it was 7.9 per cent., and in Tredegar it was 74 per cent. I hope that the Minister will recast his phrase before he speaks of Wales as being a success story.
There has been a great deal of improvement in South Wales, largely due to the Distribution of Industry Act, but there are still important areas in Wales, southwest England, north-west England, as well as Scotland and the North-East, where we need development plans of a much more pronounced character than those we have had from the Government today.
I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that these plans should have been introduced 30 years ago. I was absolutely in agreement with that part of his speech. Let me remind hon. Members that 30 years ago there was an Act under which we were paying people their expenses to move from the North to London. The Ministry of Labour itself paid a large number of fares to achieve that purpose. In those days we had a completely wrong conception—not on this side of the House; we were saying, "Take the work to the worker". Those plans should have been brought forward 30 years ago, and it is a great tragedy that they were not.
But if the Government had gone on building on the Distribution of Industry Act, which they found when they came into office, we would not have been faced with the history of the last 12 years. This must never be forgotten, even though the Government like to think that the slate is wiped clean every time they have a new Prime Minister. The Government found an instrument, in the Distribution of Industry Act, which had been the means of distributing industry widely throughout the country. What they did

was, first, to neglect that instrument and allow it to rust and, finally, to abandon it in favour of the Local Employment Act. Today we are witnessing, in the form of these new White Papers, a partial recantation, or an admission of error.
What the Government are doing is to recreate much of the machinery, in terms of Government, as described by the Secretary of State yesterday, and to recreate much broader areas, however imperfect, than existed under the Local Employment Act. In fact, they are going back to many of the principles that underlay the Distribution of Industry Act.
What I regret is, and what has been a crime against these areas, is that for 12 years we have laboured under a mistaken philosophy, of which only now the Government: are repenting and confessing their error. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) said that nobody wanted unemployment. I agree. The Government Front Bench do not want unemployment, but their policies lead to unemployment. Their very failures of omission and commission have allowed the growth of unemployment in these areas. Their failure to foresee the consequences of the decline in the traditonal industries in the areas have led to unemployment. Therefore, they areas much responsible as if they had willed it, and it is this belated confession that we see in the White Papers.
The Local Employment Act was doomed to be a failure from the start, but to say that it was a failure does not mean that it did not bring individual successes to particular areas where there was heavy unemployment. Of course it did. If it had not done that, it would not have done anything at all, but in terms of distributing industry, as distinct from removing pockets of heavy unemployment, the Act was doomed to be a failure from the moment it was placed on the Statute Book. The Act has failed, hence the proposal now put before us. Therefore, the first part of the Opposition's Amendment, referring to belated proposals and the omission of many important areas, seems absolutely justified by the history I have described.
The next point in the Opposition Amendment is that these proposals do not offer effective immediate help. It is very difficult to have a crash programme which


will offer immediately effective help when we have lost so many years. We must all acknowledge that it takes time to gear up even the programmes which the Government have put forward, but there are things that can be done. There are things in terms of human compassion that can be done, and when we talk about areas, regions and plans, as we have been reminded by a number of hon. Members we are talking about men and women. All of us who have visited and who know these areas feel that there is an atmosphere about them, a strength and solidity. They are part of this country in a sense which I do not feel the Metropolis to be part of the country.
I know of no prouder moment than to stand on a Saturday in July at the Durham miners' gala and watch these men, women and children marching behind their banners, with the bands playing and flags flying, and see that great army of men and women, part of Britain, marching up the racecourse to hear speeches from their leaders. It is a wonderful and proud moment. I invite hon. Members opposite who have not had the experience to stand in the crowd. They will feel proud to be part of that Britain.
In this debate we are dealing with the lines of men and women and their very real suffering. The Government have an obligation to help these men and women. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and other hon. Members asked a Question on Monday about giving some immediate relief to the unemployed. The point was raised again today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). We are told it cannot be done. Cannot it? Is there no help that can be given to these people for a few weeks?
The Minister of Housing and Local Government is to reply to the debate and I do not suppose that he will be able to give us an answer, but I put it to the Government for serious consideration. At present there are a quarter of a million men and women who have been out of work for over two months. A married man and his wife are trying to make out on £5 9s. a week, or, if they have a child, £6 9s. Would it not be possible, in these areas, for men and women who have been unemployed for more than

two months to be given some special help for a period on either side of the Christmas season?
Are we saying that with all the rest of the things that we can do, with the money that we can commit to Blue Streak and TSR2, the money that we can commit to education, the money that we can find for almost anything, it is beyond the administrative wit of the House of Commons to find a solatium for the unemployed who have been out of work for over two months? It will be a disgrace if we cannot find it. I urge the Government to think carefully about trying to help men and women in this position whose reserves are bound to have run down.
The White Paper proposals offer neither immediately effective help nor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland reminded us, a few moments ago, a long-term remedy. I think that some of my hon. Friends have been doing the Government an injustice. They think that these White Papers are plans. They are not plans. They are not described as plans. The Government do not claim that they are plans. They claim that they are programmes for development and growth, or, as I would say, they are a programme of public works relief. These are not plans.
The Secretary of State shakes his head. Let us examine the proposition and see how far this is true. Do the White Papers give an assessment of the developing position in relation to population or working population? They do not. For example, they are not even drawn up on the same basis. I looked through both of them to try to find out how many new jobs or workers it was estimated would be needed in the two areas, or would be looking for jobs in those areas. Both sets of figures, so far as they exist, are drawn up on a different basis.
In the North-East we are given the total of new jobs for men only. In Scotland, we are given the total for workers, men and women. So it is impossible even to put those two figures together and to say how many new jobs or new workers we expect to find in those areas. Is that what one would expect to find in a plan?

Mr. Heath: I was not shaking my head when the hon. Gentleman said that it is not a plan. I agree with him that it is a programme. I was denying his suggestion that this was nothing more or less than a programme of public relief. I would remind him that this is an attempt to create a fundamental structure in the regions which is long-term and it is not public relief.

Mr. Callaghan: If this is an attempt to provide a fundamental structure, what is the superstructure that it has to support? Before we determine what the foundations are, we want to know what load has to be carried by the foundations. We do not know, and the Government do not know, how many workers they expect to have in these areas. They do not know, and the White Papers do not tell us, what the requirements for housing are in these areas.
What the White Papers tell us is that in the North-East housing is to be stepped up by 7,000 houses per annum, and in Central Scotland it is similarly to be stepped up by 7,000 houses per annum. But no one knows whether this higher figure is related to any particular number of workers or increase in the population, because no one knows the number of workers or what the increase in population will be. This is not planning. The right hon. Gentleman can call it a programme, if he likes, but it is nothing to do with planning.
The Government have not accepted the concept of planning, either regionally or nationally. Do we know whether the communications will be adequate to fit the unknown number of workers in an unknown number of factories? How can we know until we know what basic assessment has been made? Do we know what retraining will be necessary? None of the basic factors that is requisite to drawing up the regional plans is present in either of these White Papers. Therefore, it should be quite clear that these are not plans; they are programmes of public works. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the word "relief", I will leave it out. They are programmes of public works, but no one knows what industrial superstructure they will be able to support, or even if it will be there.
Let us look at what the future holds for us: I think that it probably holds very great promise. Unlike the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade, I do not feel "daunted"—that is the word he used yesterday—by the prospect that lies ahead. If he feels daunted, the sooner he resigns from his job the better.
Looking back over the last 40 years, the population of this country—[Interruption.] This has relevance, as even the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) will see later—has increased by about 8 million. During the course of that time in Wales the population has remained practically stationary. In Scotland, there has been a small increase. In the North, there has been an increase of about 200,000. But in London, the: South-East and the East there has been an increase of mammoth proportions.
This is based on an increase in population in the last 30 or 40 years from 44 million to 52 million. What is the estimate up to the turn of the century? This is the exciting or daunting prospect. The estimate is that living in this country will be upwards of between 65 million and 70 million people within the next 35 years. This is the prospect that we have to face and for which we have to plan.
Over the next 30 years—and here the hon. Member for Carlton will see the significance of what I am saying—the population will grow twice as fast as it has grown during the last 30 years. If we look at the consequences that the growth during the last 30 years has had upon the distribution of population, we can see the magnitude of the problem that we have got to face, looking ahead. First, there will be pressure on the land. I am glad that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is to wind up the debate. He has told us that he is having land studies made. I do not think that there is much point in having land studies made or, indeed, in assembling statistics of any sort unless we are to take action after we have made the studies. What I would like the Minister to tell us is what he is making his land studies for. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has noted the question.

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what the land studies are designed for. He has been very busy in this Parliament. We thought that he was getting ready to nationalise land when he spoke on an earlier occasion. He told us that he was getting ready to nationalise land which was planned for major development. He did not use the word "nationalisation", but he said:
… land planned for major development …both to control and phase the development and to help in meeting the cost …
This should be brought into public ownership.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
We may well have to devise new machinery for the purpose.
To make sure that he was more fully understood, he said:
I have written this passage out because it is important and I should like to get it right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 656.]
Unfortunately, the effect was spoilt by the Minister of Public Building and Works, who said that this great nationalisation programme, which we had been getting ready to cheer,
represents no departure from current policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 755.]
The Minister of Housing and Local Government had not said that there was need to create new machinery. Will he do so? I have just quoted what he said. The argument is not between him and me; it is between him and the Minister of Public Building and Works, who is not here.
We are now able to give the Minister of Housing and Local Government another opportunity, in the remaining short life of this Parliament, to explain what he wants to do with his land surveys and his land nationalisation programme. He is an up-and-coming politician. I do not want to damn his career for a moment, but I am bound to tell him that he is likely to find a readier acceptance on this side of the House of his ideas for land nationalisation than he will on his own side.
However, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not fully repented, because he said that, the public having bought it—I had not better call it the "Land Commission"; that would

be getting too near to our own proposals—the public body buying the land would be ready to sell it back either to public or private enterprise.
Here we see a bit of the old Adam creeping in. The right hon. Gentleman is not fully a Socialist yet, but he is coming along, and I hope that he will take the opportunity tonight to explain to us in relation to this vast growth of population over the next 20 or 30 years how these land studies and his land programme will fit the needs of the situation.
I come, in my last five minutes, to the final part of our Amendment. [Hon. MEmbers: "Go on."] The Minister wishes to have 35 minutes, and he is fully entitled to them if he wants them. Every unprejudiced person who considers this prospect, whether his name be Toothill, in Scotland, or Crowther, in London, comes to the conclusion that we cannot have regional planning without a framework of national planning. The words of the Crowther and Buchanan Reports have been read into Hansard twice during the course of this debate and, therefore, I will not take time in reading them in again, but the Government cannot accept national planning. The Secretary of State went out of his way yesterday to describe a national plan as a rigid, theoretical framework. Why does he damn concepts like this which he may well be glad to cling to in a few years' time? He will need a national plan, and if he does not realise it yet he will have to have a period in opposition to cogitate on it.
Of course, a national plan should not be rigid or theoretical. It should be flexible and adaptable, but practical. That is the whole purpose of a national plan. Let us get a conspectus of the economy as we see it. How are we to meet the problem, which will, in my view, submerge London, the South-East and the East unless it is properly controlled, of another 13 or 14 million people within the next 25 years being added to the population of these islands? Are we to have a plan for their future and the development of the areas outside London and the South-East? If we are, as has been said in this debate, we need plans for London and the South-East as well as programmes for Central


Scotland and the North-East. The two things hang together and must be dovetailed together.
I have no doubt—and my hon. Friends and I have preached this in fair season and foul season—that we must have a programme of industrial development which will direct or compel industry to settle in particular points. I choose my words carefully. The word "direct" is included in "Signposts for the Sixties", the Labour Party document. The word "compel" is extracted from a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was introducing the Local Employment Bill. I do not mind which hon. Members opposite care to select, but they will find that members of the public in this country are more educated than they think. The public are not babies about this, and they recognise that there must be a measure of direction or compulsion if we are to achieve the balance in this country which is necessary.
I said recently that the Government were going on a spending spree. Ministers have been very sensitive about this and have kept bringing it up. I do not know why they should, because how otherwise are we to contrast all the programmes that they have now set their hand to with the fact that two years ago they could not find sixpence for the nurses? If this is not going on a spending spree, I do not know what it is.
We on this side are quite clear about what can be done. It is an ironic fact that when during the General Election in 1959 we put forward plans for expansion and growth based oh a growth rate of 4 per cent., it was hon. Members opposite who pooh-poohed it. They said that it could not be done. They accused us of reckless electioneering. I am not saying, however, that it cannot be done now. What I do say is that there is nothing in the past performance of the Government that would justify any rational elector thinking that they can do it, mean to do it, or will, if they win the election, do anything else but abandon it when they get back.
We on this side have a clear programme. We believe firmly in location of industry and in taking any necessary steps to achieve that aim. We believe that the workers and the population will start to cluster around the industries where they are situated. We believe in

a programme of using both private enterprise and public enterprise, either singly or in unison, either in partnership or severally, in order to achieve our ends because we believe that it is time this country returned to a conscious policy of shaping and designing its own future and of shaping the towns and countryside in which we live.
It is high time, in fact, that we took control of our surroundings instead of allowing ourselves to be controlled by them. It is because right hon. and hon. Members opposite have failed to adapt themselves to that concept—and these White Papers are themselves a confession of their failure—that they are, like the dinosaurs, doomed to disappear.

9.27 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I should like to start by joining in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) on a most extraordinarily assured, fluent and eloquent speech with which I am sure he impressed everyone who heard him. I only regret that I heard only the end of it, but if that was a taste of what had gone before—and I gather that it was—the House will greatly look forward to hearing him again.
I can add some substance to the compliments paid to him by pointing out that today my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave a full answer on some aspects of the position of Northern Ireland in reply to another of my hon. Friends who spoke yesterday.
I turn now to the main subject before the House. I repeat that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade explained yesterday, there are several different categories of regional need. There is, of course, first, the need of these regions, particularly Central Scotland and the North-East, where the prime objective must be to stimulate and increase employment and to make much increased use of what are now under-used resources. In both those regions, the existing lack of full use of resources is coupled with severe obsolescence but, broadly, there is not an overall shortage of land.
Then there are the regions where the precise opposite is true, and I speak now of the South-East and the West Midlands


where, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has perfectly accurately explained, we are faced by an intense land shortage coupled with a very full, almost a strained use, of resources. In between these two extremes there are the regions like the North-West and Wales where there are, in parts and to some extent, under-used resources, where there is therefore, in certain parts, need for more jobs, where there is grave obsolescence and again where, in some parts and some parts only, there is considerable land shortage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), in what I thought was a courageous, impassioned and perceptive speech, stressed the urgency and importance of dealing with the North-West, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) spoke of the possibility of growth areas within it.
I am anxious to explain very briefly what the Secretary of State and I are doing about Wales. As the House will remember, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) announced nearly a year ago that the Welsh Office was being strengthened in order to prepare, in co-operation with other Government Departments, a plan for Wales, broken down into a number of different plans for the different parts of Wales, which would analyse the needs of Wales over the next 20 years.
The purpose of the plan, which will be reviewed every few years and kept up to date, will be to use to the full the resources of Wales, to counter depopulation and to provide fuller use of resources where they are at the moment under-used.
But, of course, as again my hon. Friend the Member for Withington said so justly, the essence of this activity and planning is, as hon. Members opposite will agree, priorities, and that is why the first plans to emerge from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are the plans and programmes for Central Scotland and the North-East.
I am glad that the general approach of the Government and of the White Papers have been given a warm welcome by my hon. Friend the Member for

Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Axton), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery).
My right hon. Friend will follow these two plans with further plans which will bring together, to the extent needed in a particular region, the various relevant factors, including industry, land use and social investment. Land shortage is, of course, one of the key problems and it is, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East rightly stressed, being intensified by the rapidly growing population and by the even more rapid growth of demand for housing by reason of increasing prosperity leading to younger marriage and longer survival to retirement.
The great population growth began to appear only in the very late 1950s with a sudden, sharp and since then, maintained rise in the birth rate.
The House will be interested to know that the land studies which lie behind the plans prepared for the areas of congestion in the South-East, the North-West and the West Midlands—the land studies of the areas responding to this rapid rise in the population—were put in hand two or three years ago and are already far advanced for those regions. We need, as the hon. Gentleman said, to find land for housing and servicing the very large number of extra people, mostly born within the region with which we shall be dealing and which we have to expect over the next 20 years. It will be when the Government make known their decision on the plans for the South-East that they will also makeknown the exact and precise limits of the policy connected with the forward acquisition of land about which I spoke in the debate on land prices about three weeks ago.
A number of speeches have been made about the needs of the South-West and it would not be right for me to leave the general subject of the regional plans without referring to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and the hon. Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) and Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) will know, representatives of the South-West have recently seen my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Industry and Trade. He has undertaken that, after considering their representations, he will make arrangements to see those interested again in the new year. They can be assured that the arguments that they have advanced today—

Mr. F. H. Hayman: rose—

Sir K. Joseph: I have a lot of ground to cover—

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will indicate the place in these regional plans occupied by the South-West? Will it be the last plan of all to be implemented?

Sir K. Joseph: As I said, the House must recognise that the essence of planing is priority. My right hon. Friend will consider, and will see those concerned in the South-West in the new year.

Mr. Barnett: rose—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Sit down.

Mr. Barnett: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must not persist in attempting to intervene.

Sir K. Joseph: How do the Government visualise the achievement of the purposes of the regional plans? Let me say at once that on the central Government there is responsibility to co-ordinate national and regional policies and to do so by means of machinery and finance.
The objectives of the Government have been clearly stated. They are to achieve the fuller use of national resources and a more even spread of prosperity. These purposes march parallel with the purposes of modernisation which are the theme of Government policies. Within these policies, obviously, the Government's national economic policy, the Government's land use policy and the Government's social policy and, above all, the Government's investment priorities, must take the Government's regional policies into account.
But this will involve some change in the present machinery and the planning machinery being set up is not just being

set up in order to prepare static plans. The essence of planning machinery must be to anticipate emerging trends which can be forecast, and as I shall show—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—the assumptions within the plans will need constant consideration as the factors within them change.
Before hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer too hard they should remember that there is a definite limit, in the world in which we live, to the amount of change which can be anticipated. But to the extent to which it can be anticipated, the purpose of the plan is to anticipate those changes.
Therefore, as they are produced the plans will be kept under consideration and revised to keep them up-to-date. Many people, in studying this subject of regional planning, have talked a great deal of the part that might be played by new regional authorities. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—I am sorry that he is not present and I hope that he will read what I have said—made a good point in the speech he made yesterday about the importance of getting a greater percentage of regional participation in the preparation and implementation of regional planning.
There is a great deal of ambiguity about what is sometimes said regarding regional authorities. Sometimes they are referred to as if they were to be directly elected regional authorities with powers superimposed on existing authorities. Sometimes they are spoken of as if they were to supersede local authorities in at least some of their powers.
Let me state the view of the Government in three sentences. There is certainly need for some machinery at regional level. The view of the Government is that this should be achieved by strengthening central Government in the regions—and generally by making the central Government more region-conscious. In the view of the Government there is no room in our small island for a new tier of regionally elected authorities sandwiched between central Government and reorganised local government.
The need for reorganised local government is urgent. There must be local government power and local units to secure the effective implementation of


government policy at the local end. The reorganisation of local government is in progress. It is necessarily a slow job. But by April, 1965, we shall have Greater London and the West Midlands reorganised. We shall have a decision—I am not saying what that decision might be—on Tyneside, where an urban county has been proposed, and perhaps the new arrangements in force. We shall have West Yorkshire settled, and Merseyside and South Lancashire well on the way.
That covers, by April 1965, the six conurbations. In addition, Tees-side—where a single county borough has been proposed—should be settled by then. Again, I make no reference to what decision may be taken on that by the Government.
In short, by April, 1965, we shall have settled most of the business of local government reorganisation and got much of it into operation. Of course, finance is crucial, and concurrently with the reorganisation of finance, the relationship between central and local government will be being re-examined. Once all this is settled, local authorities will be much better organised to make their contribution and participate effectively in both the preparation and implementation of the regional policies.
These reorganisations nearly all involve two-tier authorities. They involve separating off the powers which need to be exercised in a comprehensive way over, generally, a large built-up area—powers of transport, overspill and planning—fromthe personal services which need to be exercised by local authorities in closer contact with the citizen.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) spoke as if two tiers, including one on a regional basis, might well be an answer which would attract any possible Labour Government. Let us be quite clear that two-tier local government, including a regional tier, would be the end of local government as we know it today.
There are three different and parallel lines of responsibility. There is, first, the national policy for the region, and this is prepared by the central Government in partnership with regional interests. Within this there must be

local control over built-up areas wide enough to make sense of planning, transport and overspill. Finally, there must be local services provided by a really local authority. All this cannot be done within two tiers without wrecking either local Government as we know it or withdrawing personal services to a distance very remote from the citizen.

Mr. Denis Howell: What is the Minister doing in London?

Sir K. Joseph: In London we are providing, for the first time, the strategic services in regard to which decisions need to be taken for all Londoners by an authority which, for the first time, has metropolitan powers. This will be to the enormous benefit of Londoners.
The opponents of this local government reorganisation—and they are many—argue either that the reorganisation is too drastic or that it is not drastic enough. Those who argue that it is too drastic defend the status quo, understandably, but, I believe, not realistically, in the light of the needs of today. Those who argue that this reorganisation is not drastic enough ignore both our history and the purpose of local government. We cannot strengthen local government by giving it responsibilities which only central Government, particularly in a densely packed island like ours, can finally discharge. All we are doing is putting local government in shape to cope with the local end of the regional planning job. To impose on top of all this reorganised local government a third tier would almost certainly be too complex and almost certainly ineffective.
Nor would such a regional tier necessarily be able to reach the right decisions. Here, I want to answer the speech of my hon. Friend the Member of North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). There are inherent clashes of interest within each region. There are the overspill authorities and the receiving authorities. There are the areas within a growth zone and not within a growth zone. It is most unlikely that a regionally elected local authority, with representatives of local authorities upon it, directly or indirectly elected, would be able to reconcile these conflicting interests.
I return again to the speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I think that he made a valid point in urging that there should be greater public and regional participation in the preparation and implementation of plans. I only ask that he should not be so dazzled by regionalism as a panacea as to think that, to achieve it, we must have a regional tier of local government itself. The whole question of how to associate regional interests and local effort with the preparation and implementation of the regional plan is very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Several speeches have been made, notably by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) yesterday in, if I may say so, a most sincere and impressive speech, and by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) today, referring to the difficulties of travel-to-work in those areas which are outside the growth zone. I ask hon. Members to accept that the whole purpose of the growth zone is to build up prosperity to the point at which it spills over into the region outside the growth area itself. In the meantime, my right hon. Friends concerned are determined to make travel as convenient and as practicable as possible between areas outside a growth zone and within it.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) asked me yesterday about Customs facilities at the airport at Middle-ton St. George if it should be transferred to civil purposes. I assure him that that point will be considered if the eventuality occurs.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is the second Minister to pay tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley). Is he saying that my hon. Friend must go back to his constituency, where he has a level of unemployment among the heaviest in Britain, and wait for the spill-over from a growth area which has not yet been started? Will not the right hon. Gentleman give him some immediate assistance?

Sir K. Joseph: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the development district which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West represents retains all the inducements and attractions of developing districts today.
And, may I add, I agree entirely with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen about the urgent importance of clean air.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East urged, with very strong feeling, that, in the meantime, while these plans are being implemented, there should be an increase in unemployment benefit in the regions concerned. This, as the House will agree, is a subject not exactly apt to be debated at length at this time, but I must remind right hon. and hon. Members that there was an increase, relatively a large increase, as recently as March this year—a rise of 16s. 6d. in the unemployment benefit for a married couple. Therefore, the rates have been fairly recently reviewed.
I come now to the main party issue which, I believe, emerges from our two-day debate. It can be summed up in one word, "realism". We are all glad that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has at last recognised that this is a changing world. Indeed it is. The world has changed. Conditions have changed. Problems have changed. Everything has changed except Socialist attitudes and Socialist policies.
The central Government have great responsibilities and great power to create employment, both directly by their social policies, and by their financial priorities. Clear priority has been given to these two regions, with massive increases in investment. The central Government also have, of course, great influence as a customer for Government supplies. The central Government have to create a climate, by their fiscal and economic policies, in which private enterprise is expansion minded. And the central Government have to try to co-operate with private and public enterprise to ensure that unit costs enable private enterprise to remain competitive in this highly competitive world.
I have tried to explain to hon. Members opposite that there is a very large sector in which the central Government have power to increase employment, particularly in connection with social investment policies, and it is a large part of these plans to stimulate


these by central Government decisions. Work on housing, communications, education, health, and all the other parts of the social infrastructure is being massively increased in the regions of Central Scotland and North-East England.
Occasionally, a venture crops up, like that at Fort William, where the Government can be a partner with private enterprise. But hon. Members must recognise that the bulk of this country's trade is the result of private enterprise responding incessantly and ceaselessly to the ever-changing conditions of markets at home and abroad. The obvious trading opportunities are taken by private enterprise. Government intervention in this intensively quick-changing and competitive world by direct production decisions would be avery hazardous affair. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite give the impression that they would, where-ever there was some unemployment, set up factories to make—what? For whom? At what price? For which market?
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was gracious enough to speak for a shorter time than he could have done. I appreciate that, but in his short speech I think that the whole House will recognise that he spoke of economic matters deeply affecting the life and the future prosperity and employment of this country, but never once mentioned exports.
We are asked what precise industrial pattern there will be in any one of those regions. It is possible to forecast and anticipate some emerging trends in public and private enterprise and, to the extent that that is possible, we shall do it, but, in this rapidly-changing competitive world, it is not practicable exactly to lay down who will be employed, making what, in two or three years' time.
Because of competition, the products, and the methods of making products, and the way in which the products are sold, are being incessantly changed in response to the market at home and overseas, and it is only as private enterprise responds successfully, by good management, to these ever-changing competitive conditions that the country's prosperity and employment will increase.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East rightly said, it is a buyers' market. It was a sellers' market when the last Socialist Government were in power. When the last Socialist Government were in power, the world was starved for goods after the war. Our main competitors were still laid low, and all the countries we have more recently freed—and which can now shop round the world for the most modern equipment work against us with three shifts a day with low-paid labour—had not been emancipated then. The Socialist Government were working in a sellers' market, but hon. Members opposite do not recognise that that is changed, and that it is a buyers' market now.
Let me give an illustration from an intervention made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central. He said, "If there is some unemployment, let us start a Government factory to make telephone equipment"—resulting from my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General's great new investment programme. Do hon. Members realise that private industry has already taken into account in its own expansion plans the expanded telephone programme that was likely? Do they realise that the factories concerned with making telephone equipment are now in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Aycliffe, near Darlington, and that any new production in a nationalised factory could only result in restricting production in the development districts?
The hon. Member for Jarrow spoke of the need to increase purchasing power. We must all agree with him there, but purchasing power to increase—what? Is it to increase the power to consume more tea, petrol, cotton, copper, newsprint or timber that can only be bought by selling exports?
This is not a world in which nationalised enterprise, or slow-moving Government management decisions make sense, and equally out of date is the attitude of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). He made use yesterday of some highly-selective figures. He had also obviously not read the White Papers, because he said that Sunderland and the Hartlepools are not in the


growth zone in the North-East. But they are in the growth zone.
More important, he misused, I am sure unintentionally, a figure about the success of the Labour Government in steering industry to the development districts when they were in power. He said that during the period of Labour power they steered 30 per cent, of all new factory development, measured in sq. ft., to the development districts. That is true. What he did not tell the House was that this can be broken down into two periods. From 1945 to 1948, when the world was starved for good safter the war, the then Government managed to steer 45 per cent, of the new industrial capacity to the development districts. But immediately after the present Leader of the Opposition became President of the Board of Trade the figure dropped not to 30 per cent., but to 19 per cent., far below our own proportion.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Sir K. Joseph: Of course, office employment must be spread and will be spread, but, as the Guardian said:
If Mr. Jay's speech yesterday represents Labour's last word, their recipe is 'Back to 3 951'. Mr. Jay trotted out all the old devices that were used by the Attlee Government.
The hon. Members puts great emphasis on strong negative control. Of course, tight control has its place—and my right hon. Friend is a tough customer to deal with—but it is not enough. There must be substantial inducements, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Secretary of State have provided very substantial and continuing inducements to the growth areas.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
We envisage that for some years after 1965 the growth areas will receive the same generous proportion of a steadily expanding level of total public service investment".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 992.]

But also, of course, they will continue to receive, as will all the development districts, help with the building of factories, grants, loans and free depreciation.
But the Opposition, after all this time, do not even accept the idea of a growth point. We believe that, faced as we are in these two regions with the coincidence of cyclical change and technological revolution, the quickest and surest way to spread employment is by building up a chosen place until it is so brimful of prosperity that it spills over all round. We think that growth points are good methods in these regions. Most people accept the Tightness of the decision but not the Labour Party. Problems change, conditions change, the world changes, but the Socialists' magic wand, their unrealistic approach, never alters with them.

Our approach is systematic and will be effective. The Opposition's attitude and policies are out of date, wrong and irrelevant. I therefore ask the House to accept the Motion and decisively to reject the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 316. Noes 230.

Division No. 4.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Aitken, Sir William
Bingham, R. M.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitoham)


Allason, James
Bishop, F. P.
Cary, Sir Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Black, Sir Cyril
Channon, H. P. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Chataway, Christopher


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Box, Donald
Cleaver, Leonard


Awdry, Daniel(Chippenham)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cole, Norman


Balniel, Lord
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Braine, Bernard
Cooper, A, E.


Barlow, Sir John
Brewis, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Barter, John
Bromley Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Batsford, Brian
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Corfield, F. V.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Coulson, Michael


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bryan, Paul
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Buck, Antony
Crawley, Aldan


Berkeley, Humphry
Bullard, Denys
Critchley, Julian


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Bldgood, John C.
Burden, F. A.
Crowder, P. P.


Bitten, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Cunningham, Sir Knox




Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Dance, James
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W, F.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Doughty, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


du Cann, Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Duncan, Sir James
Lagden, Godfrey
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)


Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leather, Sir Edwin
Roots, William


Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Leavey, J, A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Emery, Peter
Leggs-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Ronald


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Seymour, Leslie


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Sharples, Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Longbottom, Charles
Shaw, M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Shepherd, William


Forrest, George
Loveys, Walter H.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter


Freeth, Denzil
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
MacArthur, Ian
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Gammans, Lady
McLaren, Martin
Speir, Rupert


Gardner, Edward
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stevens, Geoffrey


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)
Stodart, J. A.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Talbot, John E.


Goodhew, Victor
Maitland, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Gough, Frederick
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Green, Alan
Marten, Neil
Teeling, Sir William


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Temple, John M.


Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Thatoher, Mrs. Margaret


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Misoampbeli, Norman
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, William
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hay, John
Morrison, John
Turner, Colin


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Neave, Airey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vane, W. M, F.


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hiley, Joseph
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles
Walder, David


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker, Peter


Hobson, Sir John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Hocking, Philip N.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hollingworth, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hopkins, Alan
Partridge, E.
Whitelaw, William


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Iyes)
Peroival, Ian
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wise, A. R.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Wolrige Gordon, Patrick


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pitman, Sir James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pitt, Dame Edith
Woodhouse, C. M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Pott, Percivall
Woollam, John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Jackson, John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)



Jennings, J. C.
Prior, J. M. L.



Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Finlay.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Paget, R. T.


Alnsley, William
Hamilton William (West Fife)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Albu, Austen
Harper, Joseph
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parker, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Healey, Denis
Paton, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Pavitt, Laurence


Barnett, Guy
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J,
Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, Ernest


Bence, Cyril
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Probert, Arthur


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Proctor, W. T.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Howie, W. (Luton)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Benson, Sir George
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Reid, William


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Bowles, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bradley, Tom
Jeger, George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silkin, John


Callaghan, James
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Sydney (Aston)


Carmichael, Neil
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, Arthur


Chapman, Donald
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Collick, Percy
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ledger, Ron
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Crosland, Anthony
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sorensen R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Darling, George
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Vauxhalf)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lubbock, Eric
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McBride, N.
Swingler, Stephen


Deer, George
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Taverne, D.


Dempsey, James
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
McInnes, James
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dodds, Norman
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Doig, Peter
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Donnelly, Desmond
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wade, Donald


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nese (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marsh, Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Albert
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fernyhough, E,
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Finch, Harold
Mellish, R. J.
Wigg, George


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Eric
Milne, Edward
Willey, Frederick


Foley, Maurice
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Monslow, Walter
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mulley, Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.


George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, B. K.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grey, Charles
Oram, A. E.



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.
Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.

Main Question put and to agree to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the emphasis placed by Her Majesty's Government on regional development as a means of promoting the growth and well-being of the country,

and, in particular, approves the programmes outlined in the Command Papers on development and growth in North-East England and Central Scotland (Command Papers Nos. 2206 and 2188).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL GRANT)

10.13 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move,
That the General Grant (Increase) Order 1963. dated 26th November 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
The Order is accompanied by an Explanatory Report, House of Commons Paper No. 14 of this Session, which I hope the House has found helpful in explaining the details of the Order. Many hon. Members will probably begin to feel themselves on familiar ground when they see this Order coming before them for consideration. Nevertheless, perhaps I should briefly try to recapitulate the circumstances under which it arises.
As the House will recall, general grants are payable to county councils, county borough councils and the Council of the Isles of Stilly. The principal Orders are made in advance of the grant period which comprises not less than two years under the Act, and are made on the basis of estimates of expenditure which local authorities are expected to incur in the grant period on the assumption of a constant level of prices at current levels.
The current grant period comprises the two years, 1963–64 and 1964–65, and the House will recollect the principal Order being approved by the House on 19th December last year. That was based on estimates of expenditure of £1,034.34 million for 1963–64 and £1,083-45 million for 1964-65, and it provided for grants of £562 million and £589 million respectively. That Order also was accompanied by a Report.
Perhaps I should remind the House that it is not permissible under the Act to take into account in the General Grant Order itself the possibility that the level of prices, costs or remuneration of staff may change. I think that it would be almost impossible to do that. In other words, as I have tried to emphasise, the estimates have to be based on the current costs ruling at the time of the introduction of the General Grant Order itself. But where there is such an increase in the level of costs which affects

the services covered by general grants and the effect seems to my right hon. Friend to be so large that the burden ought not to fall entirely on the local authorities, my right hon. Friend is empowered by Section 2(4) of the 1958 Act to increase the aggregate amount of grants. It is under this provision that I bring this present Order before the House.
Since the last Order was made in November, 1962, the cost of providing the general grant services during the current year has risen by over £45 million. Section 61 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, received the Royal Assent on 31st July this year and hon. Members may recollect that this was raised when we discussed the General Grant Order. It was then pointed out that that Act itself, then a Bill, contained provisions so that any expenditure could be brought into account under an increase Order, and this has been done in the Order now before us.
The estimates of the additional expenditure which authorities are expected to incur as a consequence of that Act and as a result of increases in the level of costs, prices and remuneration affecting all the general grant services, are shown in the Appendix to the Report on the present Order. The Appendix also shows the apportionment of additional costs to services.
I should perhaps draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 6 of the Report. This paragraph rests on the view that in considering what additional grants should be paid because of an increase in prices, costs or remuneration it is right to take into account also any saving due to a fall in other prices, costs or remuneration. In other words, in deciding on an increase in grant, the Government should have regard to the net increase in costs and not to the gross increase in costs. There is no question under the Act of an Order coming before the House solely based on a decrease in costs. There is no power for that, but when an Order comes before the House for increases the practice has been to base it on net increases rather than on gross increases.
In the second grant period, increase Orders took into account, amongst a number of items, the additional costs due to increase in interest rates affecting


that period. On this occasion the level of interest rates falling on local authorities has fallen since the original Order was made and therefore that factor has been taken into account in this Order.

Mr. John M. Temple: Would my hon. Friend care to say whether the proposals with regard to short-term borrowing by local authorities have been taken into account, as this would cause an increase in the cost of loan charges to local authorities?

Mr. Corfield: That is a generalisation with which I cannot entirely agree. It will cause an increase to some local authorities, but that is by no means necessarily the case over the whole field. As I have tried to explain, the Act does not allow a forecast of increase, so to speak. The grant Orders, both the principal and the increase Orders, are based on the costs ruling at the time of their introduction, and any substantial increase resulting from the funding that will have to take place will fall to take place in any future increase Order. It by no means follows that over the whole field there will be an increase in costs.

Mr. E. Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): On the question of increased interest charges, is the Minister basing his figure on the national average of the interest charges, or does he take into account the rate at which a local authority individually may have had to borrow money in the open market?

Mr. Corfield: The basis of the calculation is the difference in the interest rate in the markets in which the local authorities borrow—I understand that there are three sections of the market which mainly affect them in this context—the difference between the rates ruling at the time of the principal Order and the rates ruling at the time of the introduction of the increase Order. There is no power in the Act to forecast increases in cost which may or may not arise in the future. The costs have to have arisen at the date of the increase Order.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The Minister has to consult with the local authority associations bat surely his is the final decision. There are certain things laid down which he has to consider. Having considered

those things and having consulted the organisations which he has to consult, surely the Minister will decide how much he asks the House to approve.

Mr. Corfield: Yes. The point I am making is that under the Act there is no power to take into account increases in cost which may or may not arise in the future. This is the only limitation that I am trying to impress on the House. I am advised that the Act does not allow this. The local authority associations accept this interpretation of the Act. There is no dispute upon this at all.
The total amounts by which the Order increases the general grant are £25 million for the current year and £30 million for 1964-65. I am able to say to the House that, with the exception of some dispute with regard to taking into account the relatively small figure attributable to interest rates, there has been complete agreement with the local authority associations.
The other provisions of the Order to which I should draw the attention of the House are contained in paragraph 8 of the Report and refer to the distribution of the aggregate amount of the grant for each year to the recipient authorities. The principle here is to reassess the factors so that the aggregate sum is divided in the same proportion as was the case with the principle Order when that was calculated a year ago.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I think it is right, even at this hour, that when so many millions of pounds are involved, hon. Members should give some consideration to the very important General Grant Order the approval of which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has moved. After all, he is talking about additional sums from the general revenue to local authorities of £25 million and £30 million in the years involved.
I sometimes think how we spend many hours considering matters of far less financial importance than this one. Indeed, so important is this matter, that although we are always grateful to have the attendance of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is most helpful. I think this is a debate in which even


the Minister might have considered taking part. Possibly he is rather tired after his exertions at a somewhat exciting meeting which I understand he addressed quite recently in St. Marylebone.
At any rate, it is no exaggeration to say that this Order affects every ratepayer and householder in the country. We know that while the general increase has been estimated to rise by £45 million as a result of the services which have been mentioned for 1963–64, and by a sum of £55 million for 1964–65, the Government's proposals of £25 million for the first year and £30 million for the second year still leave a pretty big gap to be financed from the revenue of local authorities.
I make one passing comment on this, and it may be developed by others on these benches. The Government are now showing a great concern for the ratepayers. We have even got an inquiry to see where the hardship of the rate burden falls. I should have thought that the Government might have known that without an inquiry. Nevertheless, here would be a grand opportunity for the Government to do something specific for the ratepayers, instead of setting up an inquiry which is always a sovereign excuse for doing nothing at all.
Be that as it may, apparently the Government are not going to take the opportunity of making an even greater financial contribution, which certainly they might, particularly when one realises that a heavy part of the additional burden will be the salary award to teachers. We are all delighted that teachers are getting some recognition for the remarkably fine work that they do, but if ever there was a case for a national cash contribution I would certainly have thought it would apply in respect of teachers' salaries and, indeed, in respect of the education service in general.
I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to paragraph 6 of the Report because this is a little mystifying to some of us. I noticed, when his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) intervened on the question of short-term borrowing, that he said that was a generalisation. Surely the whole paragraph is a generalisation, and it is a generalisation with which

many local authority members do not agree. It may be that the local authority associations are not in a position to arrive at more accurate figures than those in this Report, but it is a remarkable operation at all to have tried to estimate in the period under review what has been the effect, if any, of the decrease in interest rates.
Undoubtedly, as the hon. Member for the City of Chester pointed out, a good deal of the money involved is short-term borrowing with fluctuating rates of interest in widely differing conditions, and I should have thought that it was almost impossible to have arrived at an estimate, particularly when the total sum is so very small. Nor do I think it right to suggest, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, that the local authorities were in agreement on the figures. I am told that that is not so. Certainly, there was no unanimity amongst the members of the local authority associations. However, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretarywill be able to give us some indication of how this astonishing calculation was achieved. I find it difficult indeed to understand, in what I must call the generalised statement that he made, how the calculation was performed.
There is, however, a more substantial point about paragraph 6. Even assuming that it is possible to prove that there has been a benefit to the local authorities as a result of what the Parliamentary Secreary has suggested as a result of the fall in interest rates, it seems extraordinary that the Government are taking this very small saving into consideration in their calculations of the general grant in total. There are all kinds of costs to be met by local councils which are not covered by the existing formula and cannot be. Indeed, some cannot even be foreseen.
In the new year, we are threatened with various price increases, including bread and petrol, both of which affect local authority services. The fair thing would have been to ignore in calculation these probably mythical savings—at any rate, very small savings even on the Government's own showing.
It seems at this time of good will to all men that the Ministry—or is it the Treasury?—has taken a Scrooge-like attitude and it is resented by the local authorities. At a meeting of the local


authority associations recently with the Parliamentary Secretary, they expressed concern that these calculations should be made to offset some of the gain they are to receive in general under their revised grant.
I think it is right that protest should be made. It is a typically mean action which the Minister really need not have taken. We know that there will be unforeseen contingencies—this is almost inevitable with rising costs—and to try to get a small financial advantage like this the Minister will be sacrificing a great deal of good will. I am sorry that this paragraph is included and I hope that it is still not too late for the Minister to reconsider it.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I thank my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation and for the fact that the Minister has produced an explanatory Report. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) mentioned during our Debate on 19th December last year that more information on a grant Order of this nature was desirable, and I feel that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Member have reasonably complied with the wishes expressed from both sides of the House on that occasion.
It is extremely difficult at this time of night for hon. Members on either side to discuss a grant Order of this nature. It would be much more suitable if we could take off our jackets, roll up our sleeves, put on green eye shades and have the use of a slide-rule to deal with these difficult calculations at 10.30 in the morning rather than at 10.30 at night. Nevertheless, under the rules of the House, this is the time when this Order must come forward. I am not protesting against the Order but merely against the procedure which brings it before us in away which means that we have to debate it in an unsuitable atmosphere at an unsuitable hour.
Last year my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel)—and I supported him—strongly criticised the proposals for the variation of the rate deficiency grant. After six months' gestation, the Treasury appeared to crumple up and the proposals were withdrawn.

It was indeed a significant victory for ratepayers.
Tonight I am once more on the warpath on their behalf. I am not criticising that action of the local authority associations, who have acted wholly correctly in their consultations which have, quite rightly, taken place, under the Statute, with the Government. However, I know that there was a slight difference of opinion over paragraph 6 in respect of loan charges.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has said that this is a comparatively minor matter, but in general I understand that the local authority associations have agreed to this supplemental point and have carried out their task as they should. It is not the task, however, of the local authority associations particularly to look after the interests or welfare of the ratepayers. I believe, however, that it is the task of hon. Members of this House.
On 19th December last my noble Friend the Member for Hertford described the Government as attempting to welsh on their responsibilities. I did not go as far as that but I said that the Treasury was using a certain amount of sleight-of-hand. This evening I shall give two examples connected with this Order of what I regard as Treasury sleight-of-hand. On the last occasion when I spoke I asked for a Treasury Minister to be present. Regrettably, one was not present. Tonight I did not ask for one to be present and there is no Treasury Minister present. But I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, as he did last year, will convey my strictures to the Treasury because this is not intended to be a criticism of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
This Order increases, for the year 1963–64, the amount of grant by £25 million, or 4½ per cent. It is significant that the basic grant for 1962–63 was £472 million and for 1963–64 it was £562 million, which is a basic uplift of 19 per cent. Tonight we are discussing a further increase of 4£per cent, on a grant which is already 19 per cent, above the basic grant figure of the preceding year.
The Report by the Minister says that most of the increase is the result of pay


awards, and I accept that. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did not say much about the minor formula adjustments which have been made under this Order; but I believe that there are formula adjustments of a much more fundamental character which ought to be made. I would remind the House of the basic relativity of the grants to rates referred to by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government when speaking on the Order last year, which was 56-5 per cent, for grants and the balance for rates. I shall assume that there has been no basic change as a result of this supplemental Order.
On 19th December last year I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to justify the sanctity of this relativity of 56.5 per cent. He said that he found these figures confusing, and I am sure that we all share his sense of confusion. He went on to say:
I should hate to try to justify the sanctity of any of these figures
He also said:
… the result arises from the proportions which existed under the specific grants."—[Official Report, 19th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 1330.]
My hon. Friend was, of course, perfectly right, but as I have a continuing interest in this subject, on 30th January of this year I asked a Parliamentary Question and elicited information about the exact proportion which existed under the specific grants in the base year. The Answer was that education under the specific grants was getting 58 per cent., and all other services 50 per cent, or less. I understand that the Treasury indicated originally that it was anticipated that the health and child welfare services would grow at a faster rate than the rest of the growth rates within the services which are dealt with in this Order.
As a matter of fact, that did not turn out to be the case. Education, which was allowed the highest rate of specific grant, has been about the fastest growing service. So I submit that the weighting under this Order needs looking at again. What has happened is that the service which had the highest rate of specific grant has been about the fastest growing service and therefore the relativities under which the formula works require re-weighting. I believe that there is a powerful case for this, and I suggest that

if the formula were re-weighted, 57½ per cent, of the relative expenditure might be paid in the form of grants. As this expenditure for 1963–64 is £1,034 million, if this re-weighting took place, the sum involved would amount to £10 million, a not insignificant assistance to ratepayers.
My second point relates to the major part of the expenditure referred to in the appendix. As I have said already, the Minister's Report makes clear that the major part of this increase in expenditure is in respect of salaries, and the bulk of the salary increases are for teachers. The amount of the increase for 1963–64—and now I am dealing entirely in terms of 1963–64—is £46 million. However, the same strictures would apply to 1964–65, roughly in proportion. The Treasury superficially has been generous—this is where I bring in the sleight-of-hand—in contributing £25 million. That is the figure given in this Order as the increase for 1963–64 as opposed to the original amount put in the Order which we debated on 19th December last year. The ratepayers will contribute the balance of £21 million, being the balance of the increase making up the total of £46 million.
On 10th April this year, I asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I paraphrase the Question—what was the best estimate he could give of the amount which he would get back as a result of an award to teachers of £21 million. My right hon. Friend replied that he expected to get back in direct taxation £5 million and in indirect taxation between £1 million and £2 million. I take the figure of £1½ million for this purpose, and, adding that to the £5 million, I find that the Chancellor expects to get back £6½ million as a result of an award of £21 million to teachers. In fact, he expects to get back 31 per cent, in direct and indirect taxation as a result of that particular award.
I have applied the same percentages to the amount in this particular increase Order, because this increase is mainly in respect of salaries, the bulk relating to teachers. In order to treat this matter in broad terms, I have used a proportion of 30 per cent, instead of the actual 31 per cent, which emerged from the reply to ray Question.
The result of my arithmetic is this. Of the sum of £45.6 million, the Treasury will expect to get back £13.7 million in direct and indirect taxation. It will pay out under the Order £25 million, but its net pay-out will be only £11.3 million. The ratepayers, on the other hand, are expected to pay a further £21 million, so that although superficially the Order says that the Treasury is to provide £25 million and the ratepayers £21 million, in fact, the Treasury will pay a net £11.3 million and the ratepayers will be asked to find £25 million.

Mr. Corfield: Is my hon. Friend taking into account the proportion of the rates to be provided by industry now paying full rates which will not be there for taxation purposes?

Mr. Temple: I expected that question. I think that I got it from the other side of the House last year. I have not specifically taken that into account. My answer is that, if industry were not contributing that amount in rates, the profits of the undertakings would be that much larger. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has about a 51 per cent, interest in the profits of industry, so he has that direct interest in profits as well. It seems to me that he looks after himself both ways.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will stand up to the Treasury in this matter. I have a feeling that there are happy smiles in the Treasury as a result of an increase Order like this. Quite frankly, the Treasury is "getting away" with it. I want someone to go to the Treasury—I will volunteer to go with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, hold his hand if necessary, if he does not feel strong enough himself—to expound the whole argument which I have now put before the House. I believe that it is clear, from the figures which I have given, that the Treasury is getting an extraordinarily good deal and the ratepayers are getting an extraordinarily poor deal.
To sum up on these two points, I started by saying that there had been a basic uplift of 19 per cent, as between the expenditures of 1962–63 and 1963–64. An increase of this nature, followed by an increase such as is proposed in this

Order, is far in excess of the rate of growth postulated in any of the guiding lights set forth by the N.I.C., or the N.E.D.C., or any other form of guidance we have at present. Rateable values are going up at roughly a rate of 2½ per cent, per annum, using the figures given in "Rates and Rateable Values", so that the rate of increase of local government expenditure is running at a rate far in excess of any of the growth figures with which we are commonly dealing. If this goes on, the only result will be a substantial increase in rate poundages.
I suggest that the Treasury should measure up to its responsibilities in this matter. We require this formula adjustment to which I have referred, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that both he and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary get exceedingly tough with the Treasury.

10.46 p.m

Mr. James Boyden: I wish to refer to three matters, and the first relates to the North-East. I know that a good many of the local government expenditures in the North-East plan have been known for some time, but the plan, which has been available for only a few days, must include local authority expenditures that have not so far been discussed. Is the sum required by the North-East plan now identifiable? Presumably, some of it is covered in 1963–64. Can that be identifiable as regards each local authority and the area as a whole? Can any estimate be made of what it is likely to be in 1964–65, and will it be possible later to have some indication of how the burden being put on local authorities compares with the burden on the central Government?
The other two items relate to the salary award to teachers. This was the upsetting of the Burnham Committee which caused such an uproar in the teaching profession and which, presumably, has had some effect on teacher recruitment. Is it possible to identify in this increase the amounts of money required by those areas where the numbers of teachers are below the quota, so that these areas can, by one means or another, bring their numbers up? Some authorities adopt a kind of "flying squad" of supply teachers; others will do their best to recruit married women


and part-time teachers rather more vigorously. Is it possible for these sums to show how local authorities are dealing with this, and how the Government are making their contribution?
That brings me to something that, I suppose, cannot yet be considered, although it may possibly be considered for 1964–65. I refer to the recommendation in Appendix 3 of the Newsom Report that there should be a small differential arranged in the next scale awards for teachers who, as it were, become part of a permanent "flying squad" to go to areas where there is a deficiency of teachers.
That is connected with my second question. These things are going on, and are part of the revised salary awards. If the Newsom Report and that recommendation are adopted, is it possible to include that in these salary awards?

10.49 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I cannot hope to emulate the technical excellence of the speeches which have been made in this short debate, and I must admit, what will be readily apparent to the House, that this is somewhat unfamiliar ground to me. However, I hope to be acquitted in advance of deliberately wasting the time of the House should it be found that I have completely the wrong end of the stick. There are one or two points which I wish to make, and I will be as brief as possible.
I want to refer to paragraph 8 of the White Paper which accompanies the Order and which says,
The weightings have been revised in such a way as to ensure, as far as this is possible, that proportionately the same amounts are distributed through the basic and supplementary grants as before.
I am rather disappointed that this is so. I confess that I had a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) in anticipating interim measures of relief for ratepayers and in anticipating further extended changes which might come as a result of the general review of local government by the committee set up by the Government. I am sorry that on this occasion, if by legislation it is possible to do so, the opportunity has not been taken to make a change in the weighting

of the factors which comprise the formulae.
I had hoped otherwise; I had hoped that the change would take place, and I was encouraged in this hope by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Conservative Party Conference at Black pool. I quote an extract from a report in The Times of 11th October. My right hon. Friend was reported as saying,
The general grant formula, though complex, is not sacred. I think we probably could help some areas if we did something to take into account rather more than at present the numbers of old people in areas in assessing the general grant … Another line of thought was to take account of areas which benefited least from the provisions of the central Government. The formula now used seemed adversely to hurt some of them".
This quotation raises two points: first, that there are areas which have benefited less than others from the provisions of the central Government and, secondly, that more account should have been taken of the number of old people in areas, My constituency is affected in both cases and I want to say a few words on each point.
First, by way of preamble, it is well known that Bournemouth has long been regarded as the wealthiest town in Britain, but it is only so regarded when measured in terms of its rating resources. I will not go into other aspects, but that is the point which I wish to make for the purpose of the debate. This wealth in terms of its rating resources is due primarily to the high quality and high rental value of the predominantly detached houses in the town. In 1956 there were, for example, as high as 72.5 per cent, of domestic assessments in county boroughs in England which did not exceed £25 rateable value. The comparable figure for Bournemouth was only 17.2 per cent, which came in that group. This indicates the high standard of property values in Bournemouth.
This high total rateable value led to a comparatively low rate poundage, but this has not meant a low rate contribution from householders. The 1963 revaluation has made matters worse, because it has resulted in Bournemouth being subjected to a higher increase than any other county borough in the country. In Bournemouth the average domestic rate per head of the population is


£14 13s. lid., an increase of no less than 47 per cent over the 1962–63 figure. In the country as a whole the figure is less than 1 per cent, more than the 1962–63 figure.
The major proportion of the rate charge in the county borough of Bournemouth is devoted to services of national importance such as are in fact listed in the White Paper in the Appendix under "Apportionment". These include education, health, welfare, the police and civil defence. Bournemouth's ratepayers and residents have not had very substantial assistance from the central Government towards these national services. I have already explained what the domestic rate payment per head of the population is in Bournemouth; it is £14 13s. lid. For purposes of comparison, in Bradford it is only £6 19s. 2d., yet Bradford receives 30 per cent, deficiency grant and Bournemouth receives none. I hope, if it is possible, that at an early stage there is a review of the rate deficiency grant system.
The second point raised in the extract which I quoted from the speech by my right hon. Friend concerns the numbers of old people in areas. Hon. Members will know that on a number of occasions I have taken the opportunity of stressing the figures which Bournemouth has to consider in this respect. I hope that they will bear with me if I repeat them once more. In 1961 Bournemouth had 31,000 out of a total population of 150,000 in the age group 65 and over. That is a formidable proportion. It is well in excess of the national average.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: From the point of view of the hon. Gentleman's majority, it is valuable.

Sir J. Eden: I have no doubt that it is probably the case that I am glad of my majority, but it is not due to the fact that there is a high proportion of elderly people. It happens to be the fact that a greater degree of wisdom collects in Bournemouth than in some other areas.
But there is this very high proportion of elderly people. It is fair to say that the authority has endeavoured to live up to its responsibilities in this regard. There is a very substantial provision of special purpose-built homes for elderly people. On the whole, the

general welfare and domiciliary services of the county borough are second to none. There is, of course, still much to be done in this direction. The chief executives in the health, housing and welfare departments all co-operate very closely. I know that council members, regardless of party convictions or anything else, take these duties extremely seriously. All are anxious that Bournemouth shall continue to fulfil its obligations to its elderly citizens, most of whom have come to retire in Bournemouth having spent their working life in other areas.
In a sense, therefore, this is an obligation which Bournemouth undertakes on behalf of the nation. Everyone hopes and intends that this shall continue. We have already outlined a very impressive and imaginative programme of action to achieve this. I think that the rest of the nation must come to recognise the financial implications of such a programme on Bournemouth's resources.
With the weighting as detailed in paragraph 8 and the distribution as outlined in the Appendix, an extra £1,000 will come to Bournemouth to help it to meet its obligations to children under 5 and old people over 65. This is not a very substantial sum. I hope that the weighting given to this factor will be increased. It could be done without increasing the total sum involved. That is what I should like to see happen.
The way in which it might happen—I do not know whether it is possible—is for the figure of £805 per head of population, which is proposed to make up the basic grant, to be reduced, and the supplementary grants for young children and old people increased. The effect of this would be to produce a small but none the less welcome increase for the category of people for whom I have been speaking.
Other local authorities placed in similar circumstances, with like responsibilities and in like conditions, would probably welcome this, but I appreciate that this would not be universally welcome, because if this were to be repeated throughout the country those who did not have these important duties would obviously lose rather than gain. But they do not have the same costs as those which Bournemouth has to face.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member has referred to the costs which old people have to face. I appreciate that problem, but would it not be true to say—I am sure that he has the figures—that if Bournemouth has a very much higher proportion of old people it almost certainly has a rather lower proportion of school children than the average over the whole country. If Bournemouth is above the national average in terms of its old people and also in terms of its young people, there must be a very small number of parents. Therefore, I do not know where all the children come from.

Sir J. Eden: That is not so. To be honest I do not know whether it is at the national average in terms of young children, or just above it or just below it. It is, I think, pretty well about the same as the national average. But because we have a larger proportion of old people it does not follow that we have a smaller proportion of young people.

Mr. Reynolds: Yes. it does.

Sir J. Eden: No, it does not. We probably have a smaller proportion of parents, because we have a higher proportion of retired people who are no longer parents of young children.

Mr. Reynolds: Therefore, unless the average size of the family in Bournemouth is higher than the average size of the family in other parts of the country, Bournemouth must have a smaller proportion of children.

Sir J. Eden: We still have a substantial number of children coming in for educational purposes, and we provide a high standard of education for them.
If something cannot be done through the vehicle of this Order, perhaps, with the interim measure on rating, whenever they come, before Christmas, a step will be taken in this direction. I hope that whenever those measures come before the House they will be simple and clear-cut. Nothing would be worse than for them to be complex and involved.
In any case, I am sure that with the increased earnings in industry today, and with the greater prosperity in young families, still more consideration should be given, at a national level, to

the financial consequences of fulfilling our duty to the elderly people. This is the point that I have been trying to make. I hope that at some time we shall see a recognition of this fact, and of the obligation placed upon the County Borough of Bournemouth in trying to meet this need.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I was horrified when I found myself in complete agreement with the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). I was wondering where I must be wrong; but I am still convinced that I am right. In the second half of his speech the hon. Member said that he wanted more money for Bournemouth by taking away money from every other local authority. That is basically what he said. I want to see authorities like Bournemouth, with more old people, receiving more out of the general grant, but I do not want to see it taken away from other local authorities. It should be met in the right and proper way, by making an increased amount of money available in the general grant. The hon. Member is being less than fair to other local authorities in proposing that ratepayers in other areas should pay more so that ratepayers in Bournemouth can pay less. That is what the hon. Gentleman is asking for.

Sir J. Eden: Let me emphasise the point I made, which is that many of the people now residing in Bournemouth have come from other rateable areas outside of Bournemouth itself and have thus taken the obligation away from those areas and placed it on Bournemouth.

Mr. Reynolds: I do not dispute that. But a large number of people when they retire go not only to Bournemouth but to many other places on the coast, places stretching into Kent in the South and to places in the West. In rating, however, we cannot look back to where people resided years ago. We do sometimes in connection with old people's homes, and argue which local authority should pay for them. We cannot do that in the matter of rates; we must take the situation as it is.
For some completely unexplainable reason, areas which have a greater number of old people are, on the whole, the areas in which the ratepayers seem to have been rather harder hit than those in other areas. We are now, perhaps, going to have the explanation that the valuation officers have made a mess of the job, that perhaps the valuation officer in the. West Country has over-estimated the percentage and that it is going to be put right. But it still appears that areas where there are old people are the areas where the ratepayers have suffered.

Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is because there is virtually no industry in those areas. Although the average increase is below the figure mentioned in the original White Paper, which does not require my right hon. Friend to act, in individual cases it has gone up to 80 per cent, or more, and these are very high percentages.

Mr. Reynolds: That is perfectly true.T have the good fortune to be the chairman of a finance committee of a borough in Middlesex where a large proportion of the rateable value comes from industrial properties and where some 98 per cent, of the ratepayers have had a reduction in rates this year as compared with last year, but nevertheless the problem exists to a great extent in my constituency.
For the reasons which the hon. Gentleman stated, it is the predominantly residential areas which have suffered more than the mixed areas. We have been told that some time this Session we shall have legislation which will enable action to be taken to deal in some way or another with this problem. It will, I presume, take time to be got through. A lot of explanation will have to be given to local authorities and ratepayers once the Measure has been passed.
I think that such legislation is completely unnecessary in order to do something for the ratepayer, and for the residential ratepayer in particular. It could be done without any legislation—by a straightforward increase in the grant. The Minister indicated—and I do not accept this argument—that he could only increase the general grant by such amounts as are required to cover increases in the relevant expenditure as laid down in the Act, Quite frankly, I

do not accept that. The Act states that the Minister shall look at relevant matters. It provides also that he must consult with the local authority associations before coming to a decision, and, having once come to a decision, he must lay before the House the specific amounts involved.
There is nothing in the Act which, as far as I can see, prevents the Minister from saying to himself that in addition to the relevant expenditure he will, with the consent of the Treasury, place an Order before the House making an increase in the general grant not only to cover relevant expenditure but to give assistance in respect of the general expenditure.
I can see nothing in the Act which says that the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that. Section 2(1,a) lays down that the Minister shall consider
the latest information available to him of the rate of relevant expenditure (excluding, except in so far as the Minister with the consent of the Treasury otherwise determines, any expenditure of a description in respect of which no grant has been paid for years before the year 1959–60) …
I would interpret that as meaning that with the consent of the Treasury the Minister can look at what had happened with expenditure other than relevant expenditure. I maintain that there is no absolute prohibition in the Act and that if he wants to do so, with the consent of the Treasury, the Minister can look at the global expenditure of local authorities. The Act says that he must pay particular attention to relevant expenditure on services under grants now stopped and replaced by the block grant, but I cannot see that the Act stops him from looking at the other expenditure as well.
The "get-out" is there. It enables the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, to look at the other expenditure if he thinks it is desirable and there is a case for it. We ought therefore to be not just asking for such an amount as is necessary to meet increased expenditure, such as wages, on the relevant services, minus minute amounts for interest and things of that kind. If the Government are genuinely interested in helping the ratepayers, we ought to be providing in this Order not merely the amount necessary to restore the real


value of the present grant already fixed but an additional amount which would give financial assistance to the ratepayer from 1st April next.
I maintain that we could be doing this tonight. We do not need an Act of Parliament. We could ask the Minister and the Treasury to pay an additional £50 million to local authorities throughout the country. There is no reason why it could not be done. If the Minister is convinced that it cannot, I hope that we shall have it placed on record in this debate which Act of Parliament or which Section of the Local Government Act, 1958, makes it impossible. I understand that the Minister can lay one of these Statutory Instruments at any time and, if we approve it, he can pay additional amounts to local authorities by way of general grant.
In this respect I rather like the idea of the general grant, because it makes it possible for any Government that really wants to help local government to find the money suddenly. I am absolutely convinced that a Government who want to assist the ratepayers at any time can do so by taking a couple of hours of Parliamentary time after 10 o'clock, whereas under the old system it would have required legislation. Why do not the Government take advantage of this alteration in the present Order, which must be made because of changes in relevant expenditure, to give general financial assistance to local authorities as a whole? We have had speeches from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Conservative Party Conference and by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the effect that the Government want to help ratepayers. If they really want to do so, they can do it tonight.
It is said that legislation which we are to have in due course will make it possible for local authorities to adjust the burden as between ratepayers in their area in some way not so far known to the House. I would argue that we ought to be discussing having more money now. At the same time, I follow the argument of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West that if we have more money to distribute, then, because most of the areas hit by revaluation are areas where a large number of old

people happen to live, a large proportion of that money ought to be paid out in that part of the distribution scheme which applies to people over 60 and 65 year, of age in any particular area. I think that can be done quite easily. It would save the time of this House and would be an easy method of dealing with the problem.
I suggest that the Minister does not press this Order, but that he should have a word with the Chief Secretary about it and try to persuade him that there is an easier way of dealing with the problem. The Chief Secretary wanted to do something in the matter; he told the Conservative Party Conference that he wanted to do something. I hope that it will involve the Exchequer's money going to help the ratepayers, and not something which will help one ratepayer at the expense of another. If the Minister really wants to help the ratepayers he should persuade his colleagues that the best way to do so is to increase the general grant and arrange the formula so that a considerable proportion of the increased grant goes to those local authorities with a large number of old people.
I should like to ask one more question, relating to calculations which are involved in connection with interest charges. I understand that there will be some changes in the way in which local authorities can borrow money from 1st April next; if the Bill which has been published is made law. Could the Minister tell us what assumption has been made in calculating the figures in the Report relating to the extent to which short-term borrowings of local authorities will change? The Bill will cause a considerable increase in the amount of short-term borrowings by local authorities, because the percentage figure up to which they can borrow is considerably higher than the amount up to which most of them are borrowing, and the Minister has now fixed what is considered to be a respectable figure up to which most local authorities will go. I should like to know what proportion of the total the Minister has assumed will be borrowed, payable over periods of less than 365 days. Some assumption must have been made in working out the calculations, and I should like that information from the Minister.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take very seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has said, particularly about the interpretation of the Local Government Act. I was very surprised indeed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's rigid interpretation of the Act in relation to the power of the Government to anticipate expenditure which is expected during the preceding year. It is an alarming thought.
I well remember the Committee proceedings on the Measure, and, although lawyers do not take any notice of what happens in Committee, I think that Parliamentarians ought to do so. My impression was that there was to be a wide view of what was likely to happen during the two years of the grant period. The interpretation which the Parliamentary Secretary has put on it tonight seems to be much narrower than that, and I should have thought narrower than the Act provides.
I should like to refer the Parliamentary Secretary to what I regard as a notable omission from his speech. How is the computer? Last year it was in rather a roguish mood. It was tossing out some rather odd interpretations of figures and statistics. I hope that in the year which has passed it has begun to mature and has become more solid and reliable. If it has, possibly it could produce some more percentages for us. I am bound to say that I am in complete confusion about this percentage gap. The Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to write to me about a year ago after the debate which we had demonstrating, I thought, with tremendous fervour that the Government were paying 56 per cent, towards relevant expenditure in grant.
However, in a table printed in column 48 of Written Answers on 3rd April this year, a figure of just over54 per cent, was shown. Which is right? I ask because it is difficult to estimate how full and how comprehensive this grant increase is unless we know how it compares with the percentages of the original general grant. Again, knowing of the existence of the computer, I did not trouble to use my slide rule, but at a rough guess I should

think that 55.5 per cent, would be the total cost of the expenditure. It would be very helpful if we could be told.
We might also be told something about the astonishing fertility of the old people of Bournemouth, because I was put completely out of my stride by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). I found it extremely difficult to believe what he said and I tried to check it quickly with the appendix in the Order. So far as I can see, the hon. Member is quite wrong. Bournemouth appears to be very much below the average when compared with comparable county boroughs of a similar size. I have not the facilities for calculating this, however, and I should be glad if we could be told about it, because it is something which ought to be cleared up. As the representative of a northern constituency I should be sorry to have to think that there is a southern area with people more virile and vigorous than those in the north of a similar age.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) made a stimulating speech as he usually does. His discussion of teachers' salaries and the tax position of teachers seemed to me, at least, to be the beginning of an argument for the development of a local income tax system and I was very sorry that he stopped short in that argument. It might not be in order for me to try to develop it, and I will not go beyond what the hon. Member said but I repeat that I was sorry that he stopped short. It was an interesting speculation.
We are told that the proposals to reduce the rate deficiency grant have been dropped—or that is what I now understand. It may be my sluggishness, but I did not know that. I am prepared now to think that there has been an answer given in the House.

Mr. Corfield: indicated assent.

Mr. MacColl: I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary had told me. Would it be indiscreet to ask if it is postponed until after the election, or is this the definitive policy of the Government—that there is not going to be any interference with the rate deficiency grant until after the election? Last year we discussed this matter under the shadow of the fact that there was an absolutely


firm statement from the Minister that there would be this change. It was absolutely firm. There was no to-ing and fro-ing about it.

Mr. Temple: The Minister of Housing and Local Government informed me, in answer to a Written Question in July, that the Government had no proposals for varying the rate deficiency grant.

Mr. MacColl: This again makes me a little angry. I am glad in a way that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is not here because he would have been even angrier. We have had several quarrels with the Ministry about this habit of making important declarations of policy in a Written Answer to—I hope the hon. Member for the City of Chester will forgive me—a stooge. The hon. Member must have had some reason for putting that Question down. It is very odd that no one on this side knew anything about it or was told about it. It is really very wrong that the Minister should make an important declaration of policy like this, which means that the House is not in a position to examine its implications by question and answer across the Floor.
Another point raised last year and which was touched on tonight was the distribution formula. We were told last year that the Minister then was rather of the view that not much could be done within the existing law to alter the weights in the formula to meet the growing needs of local authorities. He said he was discussing with the associations changes in the statutory structure of the formula with a view to seeing what could be done. Perhaps this has been another Written Answer I have not seen. What has been the result of those discussions? Are we to expect any more drastic changes than are being made here in the weights?
The main point, and the most interesting development apart from teachers' salaries, is the new service to be provided under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. I express appreciation to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for being here. He made a meteoric appearance when the Act first appeared and we never saw him again. Now he is here at the

winding-up proceedings, as it were, and we are delighted.
But I am a little disappointed by the figures. If they have been agreed with the local authorities, no doubt they know what is and is not possible. But I should have expected an expenditure larger than this, not this year, when the thing is coming into operation, but at least next year. I should have thought that more than £400,000 would have been spent on this preventive work in a year.
The sum sounds a lot but it is not a tremendous amount when spread over all the children's authorities. I believe there are about 150 of them, which means that it will average out at about £3,000 each. That does not seem to be much more than the salaries of a couple of case workers, whose salaries are, in any case, very low. This is not a very substantial contribution to make to this very important work.
This is the only sort of occasion on which we can discuss the financial implications of such important measures because they are wrapped up in relative expenditure now, but the sum for the children's service is certainly much lower than it should be.
The other point raised is the question of the rates of interest. I thought there was great weight in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). He asked what the basis of the calculations was. Was it taken on an actual measuring of the changes in loan charges returned by the local authorities? Or was it merely a notional calculation based on observable changes in the rates of interest which could be found in the Financial Times?
Those are very different things. A lot depends on the financial policy of the local authority. Quite a bit may depend on the creditworthiness of the authority. It seems a little hard that a local authority in good credit, which has borrowed money with care, should suffer more than one which had not been so skilful. Whether or not a local authority finances itself by loans or borrows, each item of expenditure must have an actual effect as opposed to a notional effect. I agree with my hon.


Friends and, I think, the hon. Member for the City of Chester—I do not want to put words in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that he was taking the same view—that this is rather a shoddy performance. Here we have local authorities wrestling with a tremendous financial burden. As was said by the hon. Member for Chester, they are faced with expenditure increases comparable with those falling on other public bodies. They are in the forefront of the development of our social services. It seems absurd that after years of suffering from a policy of high interest rates and having had to go to the open market to borrow, now that there has been a slight change of interest rates in their favour, there should be this sudden cutting down of the grant; and despite the fact that there are likely to be other changes when the new legislation begins to work.
It seems wrong to deal with this matter in a "bitty" way. It should be dealt with when the whole mechanism of borrowing has been surveyed and brought up to date. As soon as local authorities are likely to gain some little advantage the Government start to be mean. They were mean about industrial re-rating which they took substantially into account when reducing the general grant. They threatened to be mean about the rate deficiency grant and were stopped only by the outcry and the likelihood of a General Election. They are taking the same attitude about this matter.
Although this is a debate about finance, we are dealing with the problems of ordinary men and women who are trying to cope with responsible duties and are continually under a tremendous financial worry. The Government attitude is not worthy of a senior partner in this important work. It is a niggling attitude. To put hon. Members out of their misery, because I cannot believe that they are sticking around to listen to me and so it must be because they think there may be a Division, I wish to make it clear that I shall not advise my hon. Friends to divide against the Order. We think that it is a poor thing, but it is better than nothing and so it should go through.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I think that it would be right first to clear up any question about the legal interpretation put upon the Apt. I am told that, if one happens to be a lawyer and also a junior Minister, one must not be one's own legal adviser, but I shall attempt it tonight. If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) will look again at Section 2(1) of the Local Government Act, 1958, he will see that the words are
In fixing the annual aggregate amount to be prescribed under the foregoing section …
and it is the foregoing Section which deals with the principal Order. I referred in opening to the fact that this particular increase Order was made under Section 2(4) under which it is clear that the order-making powers of the Minister are circumscribed by the need for an increase having regard to rises in costs over and above those current at the time of the principal Order. Those are the only circumstances in which an increase Order can come forward, and, once it is brought forward, it is only that type of increase in costs, remuneration, and so forth since the beginning of the period which could not be foreseen under the general Order which can be considered under this procedure. Anyhow, I am supported by the knowledge that that is the advice of my advisers on the matter. I think that it is clear that what the hon. Gentleman was quoting referred to the General Grant Order.

Mr. Reynolds: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about that, but I have not noticed that he can provide for only 50 per cent, of the increase in such an Order. It is clear that he could make an Order for the whole of the increase, is it not?

Mr. Corfield: No. Under the same Section—I think it is subsection (3)—there is a requirement on the Minister to apportion the increase and apportion the formula in the same way as the apportionment for the general grant; and I think that I am right in saying that that automatically must tie the apportionment under the increase Order to the apportionment already settled a year ago.
I now take up the question of costs under the Children and Young Persons Act raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). All these matters,


of course, have to be based on estimates submitted by the local authorities and aggregated. As regards this particular estimate, the Government, operating eventually through my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, took the view that the local authorities had been somewhat less than generous to themselves and aggregated the estimates upwards rather than downwards. Therefore, if there is any error here, it arises solely from the local authority estimates and in no way from any meanness on the part of the Treasury. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) will put that in favour of the Treasury and against all the other black marks he has been awarding.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and other hon. Gentlemen raised the question of interest rates. The point here is simply that this is something which has always been taken into account, although on previous occasions it has always represented an increase in the costs rather than a reduction. The calculation is extremely involved. I will gladly write about it to the hon. Member for Widnes and to any other hon. Member who is interested. I have seen it worked out. The calculation covers four pages of foolscap, and I do not think that, even with that documentary assistance and the assistance of a blackboard, I could make it particularly plain.
I assure the House that the basis of the calculation has been exactly the same whether it has operated for or against the local authorities. I know that, on the face of it, it can be argued that this is rather mean, as it is less than £1 million in the first year and only £1 million in the second year—because we aggregate upwards to the nearest £1 million—but this is the consistent practice, and I think that the House will agree that if one makes rules it is as well to keep to them, and that once one starts making exceptions one gets into even greater difficulty.
It is true that the local authority associations brought a delegation to the Ministry. I saw its members, but I must say that they did not seem to me to make a very strong or logical case. They were mainly concerned with the difficulty of estimating, and this is something one can understand. If one looks

over the history of the General Grant Orders, it is noticeable that the estimate is further out in the second year of the pair than it is in the first. That is something we shall certainly look into, but whether one takes in the interest figures—and, if one does, whether one does so only when they are favourable and not when they are against—is quite a separate issue. Apart from that, I can assure the House that the local authority associations are in full agreement with the basis of the Order.
As the hon. Member for Widnes has reminded us, the percentage is an involved matter, but I can assure him that the proportion remains the same; I think it is 56.5 per cent. He will probably remember that we had a rather difficult discussion last time, because there is a figure under the heading "Accommodation for the aged and infirm" which is added only to be subtracted again. That is because it is not at present included in the general grant calculation at all but it has been agreed with the local authorities to negotiate it in future.
The figures are, therefore, included, in order to provide a base, so to speak, over the next grant period for calculating what should be the proportion of general grant to expenditure to take account of this service. The expenditure figures relate at the moment to an amount in the grant based on so much per place. We have put them in as a sort of informative feature, but they do not form part of the calculation. We have to takeoff that figure before working out the calculation, and I think that the hon. Gentleman—with or without his slide-rule—will come to the conclusion that the proportion works out at about 56.5 per cent.—

Mr. MacColl: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but when I read the figures in this Written Answer—

Mr. Corfield: I was about to refer to the Written Answer. We are solely concerned with the proportion of the Government's contribution to the grant-aided services, and I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member's question was related to a much wider series of services. Clearly, one can get out a different series of percentages according to the particular range one takes. If one talks about housing, highways, and many other things—

Mr. MacColl: I get my figures from the Written Answer in column 48 of the Official Report of 3rd April, 1963. The 1963–64 expenditure is there given as £1,036 million, which is as near as may be what is in the Order, and the grant, is given as £562 million which, again, is as near as may be to what is in the Order. Then we have 54.2 as the percentage met by grant. I have not checked whether it is that; I hope that the computer would be less roguish, and would tell us.

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that that is the right answer, but I will check it again and, if it is wrong, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I checked it before I came into the Chamber, because I noticed particularly that, on the face of it, it was. not 56.5 per cent. However, I am assured that that is the right answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester again raised the question of the formula, but he also referred to the question of the increase and suggested that as the increase in education appears to be the greater increase, then the percentage grant on the other services was less than it appears to be. I find that the proportion of local government expenditure under the grant-aided services which is attributable to education has remained remarkably steady; over the three sets of grant periods it has remained within one or two decimal places. That may be surprising, but it is so, so that clearly the very considerable increase in education costs does not alter the percentage attributable to the other services.

Mr. Temple: Is it not correct that the percentage for education is 87½ per cent. and that the 1 per cent, or 2 per cent, to which my hon. Friend referred is a substantial factor because the remainder of the services get only 12½ per cent.?

Mr. Corfield: I do not follow that they get only 12½ per cent.

Mr. Temple: The figure I got from my hon. Friend's Department is that within the General Grant Order education takes 87½ per cent.—seven-eighths. Therefore, all the other services get 12½ per cent. If there has been an alteration of 1 per cent, or 2 per cent., that has brought the 12½ per cent, down to about 10 per cent, which is a relatively considerable reduction.

Mr. Corfield: I did not say 1 per cent, or 2 per cent. I said ·1 or ·2 per cent. I find my hon. Friend's financial approach—by which we take into account what the Treasury might get back in tax—to say the least a little unorthodox. If we started on this game we should get some odd results, not least in the comparison of hon. Members' salaries with other forms of receipts and expenditure. I do not believe that we can run any set of accounts on such a calculation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer to hold my hand, but when I get to that stage I hope that I shall have the humility to retire. While I am here I will try to fight my own battles.

Mr. Reynolds: I have a certain sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary's argument, but his hon. Friend was advancing exactly the argument used by the Ministry in taking away from local authorities a proportion of the money which they gained when industrial derating was reduced. The argument was that the Treasury was losing money because industry would claim relief on the payment, and therefore the Treasury should take money from local authorities. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Corfield: But when I put that argument to my hon. Friend he was not so happy to take that side of the account. If one did these sums accurately one might well find that it did not come out quite so beneficially as at first appears, but if we started this kind of thing in the public accounts we should have some odd results and the computer of the hon. Member for Widnes would have to be amended. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred to the sum required under the North-East plan to meet local authorities additional expenditure. I must emphasise that this Order takes into account only the increased costs and remuneration which affect the services which are already provided for in the main Order. They do not take into account and, I understand, cannot take into account under the Act any increase in the scope of the services but merely increases in the cost of carrying out the services as estimated at the time of the main Order. Most of the extra expenditure falling on local authorities


in the North will be of a capital nature, so that any expenditure which would come into the General Grant Order or an increase Order would be only in relation to the loan charges and would probably be very minimal in relation to the total sums, although no doubt of importance to individual local authorities.
With regard to teacher remuneration under both heads mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, we are looking only to costs and remuneration which have actually taken place since the passing of the main Order. It is clear that under the main Order one takes into account not only increases in costs that have occurred but any that can be foreseen, whereas under this Order we are operating from hindsight rather than from estimates or attempted foresight as to what may happen. That probably answers a number of points as to what estimates have been made about the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) raised, quite naturally, the question of the formula in the context of the difficulties facing elderly people, of whom there is a larger proportion in his constituency than in other parts of the country and who, we all know, are facing difficulties. The problem is that we start with the main Order, on which, as a result of the formula published in it, all local authorities will have calculated what they can expect as their share of the total General Grant. If the proportion is altered in any way half way through, the expectation of the local authorities which have made that calculation is clearly altered. That would be wrong. We pass an increase Order. We add the increase on to the relative total for the appropriate years, and then adjust the formula to get the same result, as near as may be.
Obviously, if the money is increased the various factors have fractionally to be increased in order to get the distribution at the same proportion. This is all we have done here. Although technically I do not think there is anything in the Act to prevent one altering the proportions, it clearly would completely upset people's expectations, budgeting, and everything else and it would be wrong. If it were worked out on a basis that a particular area—we will take

Bournemouth as an example—received the same amount of money, only differently distributed, one would almost inevitably find that the result was wholly different when applied to a different town. This would be quite wrong in the middle of a period.
Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Widnes pointed out, a study is going on at the moment. It will go into the whole question of the formula for the purpose of future general grant periods. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West will advise his constituents and the Bournemouth Town Council to put their case before that working party. This examination, unlike the examination which under the Act automatically takes place before every General Grant Order is introduced, is spreading much wider and is considering the whole question irrespective of what is in the Act. As the House knows, the factors which have to be taken into account are laid down in the Act. The actual multipliers can be altered at each General Grant Order. But the actual factors are in the Act and cannot be altered, with one minor exception of a transitional nature. They must be there, and no new ones can be added. Obviously we can get across the problem of leaving out any of these factors, technically, by putting a very nominal figure against it, but we cannot put in any more, so we are looking at this problem in the widest way, and it will be open to local authorities or their associations to consider matters whether or not they are covered by the Act.

Sir J. Eden: Does that mean that there will be no change in the weighting, or in the consideration given, for example, to elderly people, before the period 1965–66 and 1966–67?

Mr. Corfield: That is true, within the scope of the General Grant Order.

Mr. James Allason: Can my hon. Friend say whether, when he finds that there is a genuine factor which is not at present in the Act, the working party will be allowed to deal with it and make recommendations, even if it means an amendment to the law? I am thinking in terms of a factor of expanding population.

Mr. Corfield: That is the point I was making. We are deliberately widening the inquiry beyond what is in the Act. If a strong case is made for including a factor which is not there, we have not closed our minds to legislation.
The hon. Member for Widnes also raised the question of percentages. I have touched on that. I can assure him that the sum comes out the way I have done it, but I will look at it again to see if I have taken into account the points that he mentioned.
I hope that I have answered most questions. I will write to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and the hon. Member for Widnes as to the complex calculation about interest rates, but once again I assure the House that the same basis is used both ways, and that we are not doing anything more beastly to the local authorities than the local authorities did to us when it went the other way.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the General Grant (Increase) Order 1963, dated 26th November 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

INDUSTRY, SOUTH CAERNARVONSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: This Adjournment debate is in a sense a continuation of the larger debate on regional economic planning to which we listened earlier. I am raising the question of the need for a wholly new economic approach to the problems of a distinctive region or sub-region of Wales which the constituency of Caernarvon roughly covers. It is a region composed of the uplands of Snowdonia and the Lleyn Peninsula. In the past, the natural features of the area have dictated its industrial character. For centuries the mountains have provided work for slate and granite quarrymen in their thousands, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) earlier this evening. The richer soil of the peninsula has sustained a quite intensive agriculture.
However, during the past 20 years both these traditional industries have de-

clined rapidly in respect of the number of jobs they offer. On the farms automation has proceeded at an impressive rate. We do not quarrel with that, except to say that it should be our responsibility to see that there is alternative employment for the men who are displaced by the machines in the countryside as well as in the town. The causes of the decline in the quarrying industry are more complex, but undoubtedly the main cause is the competition of alternative roofing material with slate and of cheaper road surfacing material with granite.
In 1913, there were about 13,000 slate quarrymen in North-West Wales. By 1939, the number had declined to 8,000, and today it is less than 3,000—probably as little as 2,500. The number of granite workers has fluctuated rather more, but the decline in that branch of the industry also has been rapid and almost without pause. It is exemplified by the fact that two centres of the industry in Trefor and Llithfaen had a total labour force of about 400 granite workers soon after the war but today employ only 145.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the imminent closure of two more granite quarries at Cae'r Nant and Carreg-y-Llam means that this industry in South Caernarvonshire will next spring barely employ 80 or 90 men. It is the disappearance of a great industry in the area and with it, we fear, the disappearance of fine communities which that industry in the past sustained.
This would not be so alarming if new industry were coming in to make up for the decline of the old, but, unfortunately, this is not so. South Caernarvonshire has been a development district under the 1958 Act and the Local Employment Act, 1960, and a certain amount of new industry has come into the area since 1958. But it is far too little and almost too late.
We can test the position by examining two sets of statistics, the unemployment figures and the population returns. The Secretary of State for Industry and Trade, in reply to a Question of mine on 11th November, 1963, column 13 of Hansard, said that the percentage unemployment registered at the two employment exchanges principally concerned was: Caernarvon 4.8, and Pwllheli 5.6. This is


three or four times the United Kingdom average, five years after our being scheduled as a development district.
The position is particularly serious in the Lleyn Peninsula, of which Pwllheli and Portmadoc are the centres. On 14th October there were nearly 400 unemployed registered in this district. The November figures were almost certainly higher, and in the spring they will be higher still, if the threat to close the Bangor—Afon Wen railway line materialises. Another 100 men and their families would then be thrown on the dole.
Nor is this the whole story. These figures, bad as they are, would be far worse but for the extensive emigration which has proceeded and is proceeding from the area. The population of Caernarvonshire is about 120,000, that is, a little less than it was 40 years ago. That means that the natural increase of at least 20,000 has been wiped out by emigration as a result of chronic unemployment.
The part of Caernarvonshire with which I am most concerned tonight has actually suffered a substantial decrease of population. According to the Registrar-General's reports, the population of Lleyn rural district was 20,304 in 1931. By 1961, it was down to 16,290, a decline of about 20 per cent. That is a positive, substantial decline.
This is the granite area. In the adjacent rural district of Gwyrfai, which is the slate area, the decline has been very similar in its causes, its extent and its results. The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to say in reply that the resources of the 1960 Act are available to us. But something much more needs to be done if this area is to be properly revived. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt point with pride to the new advance factory now being built in Portmadoc. At least, he said this in a letter which he kindly sent to me on 14th October:
When it was decided last year to build an advance factory at Portmadoc it was on the basis that the factory might help to relieve unemployment not only in Portmadoc itself but also in the Lleyn Peninsula on one side and in Blaenau Ffestiniog on the other.
An extraordinary achievement for a small factory of 10,000 square feet!
How many people does the Parliamentary Secretary think a factory of that size will employ—50, 75, or 100

perhaps? The fact is that while this factory will make a welcome addition to the employment resources of the town of Portmadoc itself it can hardly affect the problem in places eight, 12 or 20 miles away. This is really spreading the butter so thinly that it practically disappears. In any case, this small factory comes into a district which will suffer acutely from the proposal which I have mentioned to close its railway line,
The Board of Trade gives us 10,000 square feet of factory space and Dr. Beeching proposes to take away 30 miles of railway line, and on balance we lose twice as many jobs as we gain. This is a small, local but striking example of the lack of coherence in the Government's planning in an area like this. We have been told that the Government have recently undergone a deathbed repentance on regional economic planning, but we are still to be convinced that this is a genuine conversion.
I should like, therefore, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what his Department's intentions are in regard to Wales in general and in particular for hard-hit areas like South Caernarvonshire. There was a rather disquieting note in the debate earlier today when we learned that the new attention to be given to the north-east of England and to Central Scotland might mean that Wales might be pushed lower down the queue. If that happens the areas which will suffer are undoubtedly those like South Caernarvonshire. This is a case of the poor helping the poor. Has it occurred to the Minister and to the Department that it would be just as well to push London and the South-East a little lower down the queue and so give greater priority not only to the North-East and to Scotland, but also to Wales, and particularly areas like the one I have mentioned?
The Secretary of State for Industry and Trade said yesterday, when he opened the debate on regional planning:
A study is in hand for Wales. Its general objective is to carry out a survey of the population and economic prospects over the next 20 years. On this we shall be able to base out plans for the: use of land and investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 993.]


I should like to ask a number of questions on that statement. Is it simply to be a study? Is there not to be a plan? Who is being consulted about this study? Are the local authorities of the development districts in North and South Wales being closely consulted about this study and about any plans that may emerge from it?
Will it include or lead to proposals for the revival of areas like the one I have described? Will it include a study of the present condition and future possibilities of the slate and granite industry? If regional planning is needed anywhere it is needed in regions like North-West Wales, where there are not only acute economic problems but considerable industrial possibilities, given the right approach. It is about possibilities as much as about problems that I want to talk as I bring my remarks to a close.
This is an area where not only new industry is needed in the interests of the people of the area, but where the most modern industry might well be located in the national interest—industries of research based on Government sponsored projects in the local university and technical college in Bangor, to the achievements of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition paid such a striking tribute the other day in the House.
I want to emphasise that there are clear advantages in the area for industry of the very newest type. There are space and amenity of surroundings. There is a wide choice of approved sites. There is the necessary place for research, in nearby Bangor. There is a labour force with a high standard of education; 42 per cent, of our children receive the grammar school type of education. This is an area for Government initiative not only in the interests of the area itself, necessary as that is, but in the interests of the country as a whole.
At the moment, the greatest contribution of this part of Wales is to the congestion of English cities. We want to make a contribution to the expansion of Britain. In the past, our people have made such a contribution. Over 5 million houses in this country are roofed with Welsh slates. Hundreds of factories and public buildings are similarly

roofed and they will stand the test of centuries. We want to make that kind of contribution to the second industrial revolution which is upon us,

12.12 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): It is my duty to reply to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), but it is also my pleasure because the hon. Gentleman is always very courteous in debate and also because I spent most of the year 1943 in his constituency, battle training round Snowdonia; and, in spite of the rather hostile reason for my being there, I became fond of his county.
The hon. Member emphasised the need for new industry in South Caernarvonshire, and I would like him to know that my Department and the Government agree that this need exists, so that there is nothing between us about the objective, though possibly we may differ a little about the means.
I should like to explain what we have done and what we are trying to do for the future. First, I would like to be clear on what we mean by South Caernarvonshire. The last time the hon. Member raised the problem of the industrial needs of this part of Wales, on 24th May, 1962, his speech covered the whole of Caernarvonshire. This time he speaks only about South Caernarvonshire. I think that he is right, because in the northern part of the county there has been substantial progress.
In the middle of the county—the Caernarvon group of employment exchanges—there has also been progress due mainly to the completion of the Ferodo factory, though of course there is still need for further new employment opportunities. None the less, there has been progress. It is in South Caernarvonshire that the greatest problem lies. Although there is no generally-accepted definition of "South Caernarvonshire", I take it to comprise the Lleyn rural district, the municipal Borough of Pwllheli and the urban districts of Criccieth and Portmadoc.
As the hon. Member observed, the population of South Caernarvonshire, as I have just defined it, was 25,800 at the 1961 census. At the previous census it was 27,800. Therefore, we see a decrease in population over those 10 years


amounting to 5.3 per cent. This was experienced throughout South Caernarvonshire, with the single exception of Criccieth, and it was most pronounced in the Lleyn rural district. I therefore recognise:—there is nothing between the hon. Member and myself—that South Caernarvonshire has been experiencing depopulation.
In 1962, the working population of South Caernarvonshire amounted to 8,500 people. Of these, 6,900 were employed in what the Ministry of Labour term the service industries. There were only 785 people employed in manufacturing industry. There is, in fact, very little" manufacturing industry in South Caernarvonshire. For the record, I would add that 750 people were employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing. To complete the picture, the hon. Member will no doubt wish to have the latest figures on unemployment. In November—last month—in the Pwllheli group of employment exchanges, there were 483, or 5.6 per cent., wholly unemployed, comprising 352 males—that is, 7 per cent—and 131 females (3.7 per cent.).
These figures include 47 unemployed juveniles, which is slightly fewer than in the previous month, when overall unemployment was marginally lower. A year ago, in November, 1962, there were 591–7.4 per cent.—wholly unemployed, compared with 427–5.4 per cent.—in November, 1961, and there has been a slight improvement during 1963 when the average for the first 11 months of the year was 4.5 per cent, compared with 4.7 per cent, for the whole of 1962.

Mr. G. Roberts: Could the hon. Gentleman give the figures for emigration during that year?

Mr. Price: I am sorry, but they are not available. One can only give those on the censuses. Such figures are not collected and we have to rely on the 10-yearly census in order to arrive at changes in population.
The hon. Member asked what is the Government doing. As he knows, South Caernarvonshire has been scheduled since 1958, first as a D.A.T.A.C. area, and subsequently as a development district under the 1960 Act, and this means that any suitable firm which comes to South Caernarvonshire i is eligible for the full range of financial

assistance under the 1960 and 1963 Local Employment Acts, and the 1963 Finance Act. The hon. Member also asked, quite fairly, why, if all these benefits are available, more firms have not come to South Caernarvonshire; but, as the House knows, these Acts are designed primarily to attract expanding industry to go to development districts. They do not compel industry so to go.
The plain fact is that it has been extremely difficult to interest manufacturing concerns in coming to South Caernarvonshire. They have considered the area too remote from their main markets and main sources of supply, too sparsely populated, and without any industrial tradition, and so on. I am sure that the hon. Member is as familiar with those arguments as I am. At the same time, I am glad to be able to report to the House tonight that this lack of interest in the area on the part of industrialists is beginning to change and I would like to give some figures in support of that contention.
Whereas, in 1961 and 1962, representatives of only three firms could be persuaded to visit even the Portmadoc area, during the past 12 months representatives of seven firms have visited the area out of a total of 37 firms to whom it was suggested by us as a suitable location. This change of attitude is in part due to the success of the Ferodo factory and, in part at least, due to the decision to build at Portmadoc an advance factory.
That factory is now about 60 per cent, complete, and is expected to be ready for occupation next March. It has been suggested to 31 industrialists, four of whom have visited the premises, although as yet no formal applications for the tenancy have been received. The factory has been advertised in the Board of Trade Journal, and the Board and the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for Wales will continue to bring it to the attention of industrialists. If a tenant was found who required a larger factory, we would be prepared to consider an immediate extension.
Interest in advance factories increases as they get nearer to completion, and there are good prospects that a tenant will come forward by the time this factory is ready. We shall continue our efforts to attract new industry to South


Caernarvonshire and, as I have already said, prospects of doing so in the future seem to be somewhat improved. Yet it would be wrong to suggest that we should ever be able to attract any but small, or possibly moderate-scale units, not only because of the area's geographical position, but also because there are few centres where a labour force of any size could be assembled. Our best hopes for this part of Caernarvonshire must continue to rest in the advance factory at Portmadoc.
I have mentioned figures for the northern part of the county. Indeed, in Caernarvonshire as a whole, there has been considerable industrial development during the last 3½ years. Between 1st April, 1960, and 31st October 1963, we issued industrial development certificates for 15 schemes, estimated to provide employment for nearly 2,500 workers. Six of these schemes have been completed—of those, of course, the new Ferodo factory is the most sensational—while three are under construction. We are also, as we have already announced, to build another advance factory at Bethesda, near Bangor, in North Caernarvonshire. Construction has not yet started, but we have acquired the site, and we have already suggested it to 15 firms, two of whom have visited the locality.
I recognise that South Caernarvonshire has not benefited directly from these developments, but there is no doubt that they have been of marginal assistance, and in the northern and central parts of the county we can point to actual achievement. I would also remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade told the House yesterday that the Government are carrying out a survey of the Welsh economy which will, of course, include many of the considerations with regard to depopulation, and the like, which the hon. Member has raised this evening. He will not expect me to anticipate them because one does not announce reports before they are ready; but the problems of South Caernarvonshire, along with those of North-West Wales as a whole, will feature in this survey and will, I hope, feature fairly prominently.
The hon. Member might well have urged us, as he has done previously, to

build another advance factory in the Lleyn Peninsula. We hope that the advance factory at Portmadoc will relieve unemployment not only in Portmadoc itself, but also in the surrounding area, including Pwllheli, but we recognise that its value will be greatest in Portmadoc itself. In any case, until the Portmadoc factory is let, and the local market for factory space has been tested, it would probably be unwise to undertake further advance building in this area.
Nevertheless, I would remind the hon. Member of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday—that a further programme of advance factory building is now under consideration and that he hopes to make an announcement about this soon. I can assure the hon. Member that the claims of South Caernarvonshire will, of course, be considered along with other parts of the country. I cannot go further tonight.
I should point out that there are fields of employment which can be expanded in South Caernarvonshire other than in manufacturing industry. The holiday industry is an obvious one. This year employment at the Pwllheli Holiday Camp reached a record level. If this could be done in the sort of summer we had this year it should be possible for the holiday trade to expand a good deal further in South Caernarvonshire.
The hon. Member referred to the concern felt over the closure of the granite quarries in the Lleyn Peninsula. Granite has been a declining industry, but I cannot go into details on that tonight. I understand that the Rivals Quarry, at Llithfaen, closed on 22nd October, but only four of the 22 men employed there have been registered as unemployed. As yet, none of the 30 men made redundant by the closure of the Carreg-y-liam Quarry on 22nd November has registered as unemployed, but it is known that four have found other work.
While the fears of substantial additions to the register on account of these redundancies have thus proved groundless, we recognise that the closures do represent the loss of some employment opportunities in future.
The future of granite quarrying in South Caernarvonshire is largely a matter of cost of production and of market


demand. It is also a question of transport costs. This is particularly important when considering the importance of granite in road building.
The slate industry in North Wales has been much affected by the development of alternative and cheaper materials, and manpower continues to decline. I understand, however, that positive steps are being taken by the leaders of the industry to increase productivity and increase their sales. New methods and modern machinery are being introduced and this may secure the industry against any further sharp decline. The North Wales industry would be eligible for grants under the Local Employment Acts.
The hon. Member referred to his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion, in the debate on the Address, that a new electronics industry might be based on the University College at Bangor. Although that is in the north of the county, which goes a little wider than the subject of this debate, this is a very interesting suggestion, and I fully recognise that the college has a fine record in this field. But, equally, I do not want to arouse false hopes either in the hon. Member or his constituents, and I must tell him that I have found from hard experience, in trying to per-

suade industrialists in electronics to move to development districts in other parts of the country that, more than virtually any other industry, the electronics industry appears to depend on external economies which can only be obtained in a really large-scale industrial complex. If I had time I would go into more detail, but I have not. Nevertheless, we stand ready to give assistance to any suitable electronics firm minded to site itself near the college and we would be very happy to see an electronics firm go there.
In conclusion, although, up to now, we have not achieved very positive results in South Caernarvonshire, there has been good progress in the northern part of the county. Furthermore, we are building the advance factory at Port-madoc. This should be not only the symbol of more development in South Caernarvonshire, but the actual genesis of such development. This should assure the hon. Member that the Government have not forgotten South Caernarvonshire, and I sincerely hope that it will represent for the people the genesis and not a continued exodus.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.